Madras High Court
Punitha Ganesan vs The State on 16 December, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)No.939 of 2021
Punitha Ganesan : Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
The State,
Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police,
Kallikudi Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.1535 of 2020) : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401
of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, in Cr.M.P No.4365 of
2021, dated 24.11.2021 and set aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mahendrapathy
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
This criminal revision is filed against the order passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam in Crl.M.P No.4365 of
2021, by which the petitioner seeking interim custody of the
amount viz., Rs.16,00,000/- which were recovered from him. That
petition came to be dismissed on 24/11/2021.
2.The case has been registered for the offences under
sections 406 and 420 IPC @ 395 and 402 IPC. During the course of
investigation, the alleged amount has been recovered as stated
above and remanded in RPR No.183 of 2021. The petitioner being
the owner of the above said amount, filed the above said petition.
Even though the ownership of the currency and the amount has not
been disputed by the prosecution, the only objection that has been
raised was that the balance amount got to be recovered and if the
money is returned to the petitioner, there is every possibility of
spending the same by him, which may hamper the trial process. So
challenging the above said order, this criminal revision has been
filed mainly on the ground that the money cannot be kept pending
with the custody of the trial court till the trial process is over.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.In similar situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of C.M.Mudalir Vs. State of Gujarat [2002(10) SCC 283] has
observed like this:-
"Valuable articles and currency notes
Valuable articles such as golden or silver
ornaments or articles studded with precious
stones, need not be kept in police custody
for years till trial is over. The Magistrate
should pass appropriate orders as
contemplated under Section 451 CrPC at
the earliest. For this purpose, if material on
record indicates that such articles belong to
the complainant at whose house theft,
robbery or dacoity has taken place, then
seized articles be handed over to the
complainant after:
(1)preparing detailed proper
panchnama of such articles; (2) taking
photographs of such articles and a bond
that such articles would be produced if
required at the time of trial; and (3) after
taking proper security.
For this purpose, the court may follow
the procedure of recording such evidence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
as it thinks necessary, as provided
under Section 451 CrPC. The bond and
security should be taken so as to prevent
the evidence being lost, altered or
destroyed. The court should see that
photographs of such articles are attested or
countersigned by the complainant, accused
as well as by the person to whom the
custody is handed over. Still however, it
would be the function of the court
under Section 451 CrPC to impose any
other appropriate condition.
In case, where such articles are not
handed over either to the complainant or to
the person from whom such articles are
seized or to its claimant, then the court may
direct that such articles be kept in bank
lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to
be kept in police custody, it would be open
to the SHO after preparing proper
panchnama to keep such articles in a bank
locker. In any case, such articles should be
produced before the Magistrate within a
week of their seizure. If required, the court
may direct that such articles be handed
back to the investigating officer for further
investigation and identification. However, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
no set of circumstance the investigating
officer should keep such articles in custody
for a longer period for the purposes of
investigation and identification. For
currency notes, similar procedure can be
followed."
4.Following the above said judgment, this court in the case of
R.Badrinarayanan Vs. State (Crl.RC(MD)No.154 of 2015, dated
01.04.2015) followed the procedures like this:_
(i) A Mahazar/note has to be
prepared containing the denomination and
currency numbers by the respondent and it
shall be submitted to the Court of District
Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti.
(ii) The petitioner shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.23,50,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Fifty
Thousand only) with one surety for the like
sum to the satisfaction of the Court of
District Munsif - cum- Judicial Magistrate,
Vadipatti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(iii) On compliance of the above said
conditions, a cash of Rs.23,50,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Fifty
Thousand only) is ordered to be returned to
the revision petitioner/defacto complainant
by way of interim custody.
5.On this ground, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that he is ready to abide by any condition
that may be imposed by this court.
6.There is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the
money. The trial court has not stated anything that there is a rival
claim also. The money has been recovered from the accused
persons on the basis of the confession statement. When there is no
dispute with regard to the ownership of the money, the opinion of
the trial court that if the money is returned to the petitioner, there
is every likelihood of spending the money may not be proper. The
money should not be kept pending till the trial process is over and
should not be kept idle also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.The petitioner is running an educational institution. So
money is very much required for his school and college
administration. So for that purpose, I am of the considered view
that by following the above said judgment, the following order can
be passed:-
(i)The Mahazar has to be prepared on
the basis of the Form 95 that has been
produced by the Investigating Officer;
(ii)The above said Mahazar must be
signed by the Investigating Officer and the
concerned Court Official, who is responsible;
(iii)The Mahazar must be prepared in
triplicate. One must be retained by the
concerned court, another must be handed
over to the Investigating Officer and the third
one to the petitioner;
(iv)On completing the above above
process, the alleged amount shall be returned
to the petitioner on executing a bond for a
sum of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs
only) along with two sureties each for a like
sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial
Magistrate, Thirumangalam; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(v).On execution of the above said bond,
the learend Magistrate shall return the
amount to the petitioner.
With the above said conditions, this criminal revision stands
allowed.
16.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
To,
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Kallikudi Police Station,
Madurai District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Thirumangalam.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.RC(MD)No.939 of 2021
16/12/2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
