Madras High Court
J.Raja Ramesh vs The State on 28 June, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M. Dhandapani
Crl.R.C.No.1101 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
Crl.R.C.No.1101 of 2024
J.Raja Ramesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station,
Chennai – 600 034.
(Crime No.90 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C,
praying to allow the above Criminal Revision Petiton and to call for the
records in connection with the order dated 15.04.2024 in
Crl.M.P.No.20703 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan
Magisterial Court (FAC) Egmore at Chennai and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sreenivasan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.M.R.Sivakumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
*****
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1101 of 2024
ORDER
The present revision is filed against the order dated 15.04.2024 of
the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court (FAC) Egmore at
Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.20703 of 2024, in and by which the prayer of the
petitioner seeking interim custody of the case property viz., Rs.9,00,000/-
is rejected by the learned Magistrate.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is doing the business of
garment export and one D.Lourdu Nathan was employed as a driver in
his house. Whileso, the said driver had stolen a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-from
the bedroom of the petitioner's house, which was recorded in CCTV
camera, based on which, the petitioner made a complaint before the
respondent police on 23.03.2024 and the respondent police has registered
an FIR in Crime No.90 of 2024. After investigation, the respondent police
seized the said sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from the said driver. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed a petition u/s 451 of Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.20703 of 2024
seeking the custody of the sum of Rs.9,00,000/-. Even though the
prosecution has no objection to return the said money, the trial court had
dimissed the petition vide impugned order dated 15.04.2024 holding that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petitioner has not proved that the money belongs to him and no
document has been filed before the trial court. Challenging the same, the
present revision has been filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that, no one came before the trial court claiming the seized money. In the
absence of any rival claim with regard to the said money, refusing to
grant interim custody in favour of the petition is wholly unsustainable.
Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the trial court have
power to impose any condition with regard to safety of the money,
however, intoto dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner is not
sustainable. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel prays for
appropriate orders.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent police submitted that, he has no objection for return of money
to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent police and also perused the materials available on record.
6. Admittedly, based on the complaint given by the petitioner as
against his driver, the law enforcing agency registered a case in Crime
No.90 of 2024 and seized the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from the acused.
After seizure, the petitioner filed a petition u/s 451 of Cr.P.C. in
Crl.M.P.No.20703 of 2024 seeking return of money, however the trial
court has dismissed the same.
7. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and others Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 is of relevance and the material
portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder :-
“Valuable Articles and Currency Notes
With regard to 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 Cr.P.C. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
8. Applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
considered view that the petitioner is entitled for the relief of interim
custody of the cash on the following terms :-
(i) the order passed by the learned XIV
Metropolitan Magistrate Court (FAC), Egmore at
Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.2073 of 2024, dated
15.04.2024 is set aside;
(ii) the petitioner is directed to execute a
bond for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine
Lakhs only) before the learned XIV Metropolitan
Magistrate Court (FAC), Egmore at Chennai with
two sureties for a like sum each;
(iii) The seized items should be
photographed at the cost of the petitioner herein
and a list is to be prepared and the same is to be
signed by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
sp
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in the
above terms.
28.06.2024
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
NCC : Yes / No
sp
To
1.The XIV Metropolitan Magisterial Court (FAC),
Egmore at Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station,
Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
