Madras High Court
Ramaiah vs The Inspector Of Police on 29 July, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Crl.R.C(MD)No.228 of 2021
Ramaiah : Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.882 of 2020) : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision has been filed under section
397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the docket order
passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, dated
06.03.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy
Standing counsel for
State Government (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the docket order
passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, dated
06.03.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2.The petitioner arrayed as accused in the case in Crime
No.882 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police for the alleged
offence under section 4(1)(a)of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, alleging
that he was in possession of 24 liquor bottles without any
permission or licence. The petitioner was arrested and his vehicle
TN-84-C-1904 (Hero Duet) was seized along with 24 bottles of
liquor. The petitioner filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Srivilliputhur, seeking interim custody of the vehicle. But the
learned Judicial Magistrate returned the petition, on 06.03.2021
even without numbering by citing the reason that the petition is not
maintainable, since confiscatory order has been passed with regard
to the said vehicle.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
4.The main contention of the petitioner is that without
numbering the petition, the return order cannot be passed and the
impugned order is predetermined and preconceived, since the court
has no knowledge about the confiscation order and prays that the
impugned order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.
5.On perusal of the impugned order, it is stated that
already confiscation order was passed in respect of the vehicle and
hence, the petition seeking for return of vehicle was refused as not
maintainable. It is to be noted that in this case, it was not stated
how the trial court came to know the passing of confiscation order.
Hence, the argument put forth on the side of the petitioner stating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
that the impugned order passed by the trial court is predetermined
and preconceived is acceptable.
6.For the reasons stated above, this court is of the
considered view that the impugned docket order passed by the trial
court is liable to be set aside and the case is remitted back to the
trial court.
7.In the result, this criminal revision is allowed. The
impugned docket order, dated 06.03.2021 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur is set aside. The case is remitted
back to the trial court and the trial court is directed to take the
petition on file and dispose of the same, purely on merits and in
accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
29.07.2021
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/
T.KRISHNAVALLI,J
er
To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Judgment made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.228 of 2021
29.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
