Madras High Court
P.Sadasivam vs State Through on 30 April, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1249 of 2024
'BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 26.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1249 of 2024
P.Sadasivam ... Petitioners/Petitioner
Vs.
State through
The Inspector of Police,
E.O.W.-II, Trichy.
(Crime No.78 of 2021) : Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 438 and 442
of BNSS, 2023 to call for the entire records and set aside the order passed in
Cr.M.P.No.324 of 2023, by the learned Special Court under the Tamil Nadu
Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997
Madurai dated 09.10.2024 and to return the vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN-49-BD-9010 (Bus) to the petitioner.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:54:05 am )
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1249 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Muthu Kamatchi
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.
324 of 2023, dated 09.10.2024, on the file of the Special Court under the Tamil
Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act,
1997, Madurai, dismissing the petition filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased a bus bearing
Registration No.TN-68-P-9229 along a spare bus bearing Registration
No.TN-49-BD-9010 from one Late.Kamaludeen for a sale consideration of Rs.
19,00,000/-, vide sale agreement dated 14.12.2020 and the buses were handed
over to him and in respect of all post appurtenances such as RTO and other
clearances were obligated by the said Kamaludeen, that the said Kamaludeen due
to the out break of COVID-19 expired on 14.09.2021 and as such, the
registration of the buses in favour of the petitioner could not be executed, that
when the petitioner approached the competent authorities, he came to know that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:54:05 am )
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1249 of 2024
the Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvarur had black listed the said vehicles in
the E-Vaahan Portal, that the petitioner has then filed a writ petition in W.P.No.
34028 of 2022 seeking direction to remove the black listing of the vehicles and
to consider the petitioner's representation for transfer of permit, that this Court
passed an order dated 22.12.2022 directing for removal of black listing and also
directed the respondent therein to consider the petitioner's application for
transfer of registration certificate on payment of process fee and that
subsequently, as per the directions of the respondent police, he produced the
vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-49-BD-9010 before the respondent police
on 12.06.2023 who in turn handed over the same to the District Revenue Officer
cum competent authority, Thanjavur, that the petitioner has moved an application
before the TANPID Court seeking interim custody of the vehicle, that the learned
Judge, taking note of the objections raised by the respondent police that the
property has already been attached, dismissed the petition, vide order dated
09.10.2024 and that therefore, the petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal order,
was constrained to file the present revision.
3. The respondent filed a counter statement raising serious objections.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:54:05 am )
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1249 of 2024
4. It is the case of the prosecution that one Kamaludeen of Ayyampet,
Thanjavur District floated two companies, namely M/s Raahath Transport and
M/s Raahath Cabs, that the said Kamaludeen who was originally running omni
bus business, solicited substantial deposits from general public by offering
Rs.11,000/- as monthly interest for every Rs.5,00,000/- deposit and assured the
return of the principal after three years, that the said Kamaludeen initially paid
monthly interest amount to the investors properly, but subsequently failed to
honour the payment of interest and return of principal amounts, that the said
Kamaludeen died on 14.09.2021 and the company was closed, that on the basis
of the complaint lodged, F.I.R., came to be registered in Cr.No.78 of 2021 for the
offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., on the file of the Thanjavur DCB,
that during investigation, it was found that 156 vehicles were registered in the
names of M/s Raahath Transport, M/s Raahath Cabs, Mrs.Rehana Begam,
Mr.Abdul Rahman and Mr.Abdul Gani, that the investigation revealed that 6557
depositors deposited a sum of Rs.417 Crores, that out of 156 vehicles, 53
vehicles were seized by the Investigating Officers, 60 vehicles were seized by
the private banks and the remaining vehicles are yet to be secured, that the
Government has already passed a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.188, dated
20.04.2023 for attachment of 59 vehicles, that since the Government has already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:54:05 am )
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1249 of 2024
passed an order to attach the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-49-BD-9010 in
the proceedings under Section 3 of TNPID Act and the same was handed over to
EOW, Trichy by the petitioner and that therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to
get the possession of the vehicle.
5. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not produced any iota of
materials to show that he is the present owner of the vehicle in dispute. The
petitioner himself in the affidavit has averred that he entered into a sale
agreement with the original owner Kamaludeen for purchase of two buses and
before completion of the transation, the said Kamaludeen had died. No doubt, as
rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the impugned
order, the learned Special Judge has observed that the petitioner is the owner of
the bus in dispute and the petitioner, in the revisional grounds, has also stated
that he is the present owner of the vehicle.
6. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner has earlier filed a writ
petition in W.P.No.34028 of 2022 seeking orders directing the Regional
Transport Oficer, Thiruvarur to remove the black listing of the vehicles bearing
Registration Nos.TN-68-P.9229 and TN-49-BD-9010 from Parivahan E-Portal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:54:05 am )
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1249 of 2024
and consider the petitioner's representation for transfer of permit in respect of the
said vehicles in favour of the petitioner and that this Court has passed an order
dated 22.12.2022 disposing of the writ petition with directions. No doubt, this
Court, in the said order, has set aside the order black listing the vehicles passed
by the RTO, Thiruvarur and directed the petitioner to submit an application
within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and on receipt of
such application, the respondents therein were directed to transfer the
registration certificate and permit and renew the fitness certificate, on payment
of proper fee as specified within a week.
7. It is necessary to refer the following observations made by this Court in
the said order dated 22.12.2022:
“It is made clear that mere transfer of the registration certificate of
the vehicles in the name of the petitioner, will not confer absolute
right to the petitioner, except for plying the vehicle. However, the
ownership is always subject to any confiscation order passed by the
competent Court in this regard. ................. In the event any
replacement is taken place, as per the Act, such replaced vehicles
would also be subject to the confiscation proceedings.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:54:05 am )
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1249 of 2024
8. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side),
this Court has not declared that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in
dispute, but on the other hand, specifically observed that the transfer of
registration certificate will not confer any right on the petitioner and that the
ownership of the vehicle is subject to the confiscation order passed by the
competent Court.
9. It is not in dispute that the originally F.I.R., came to be registered in
Cr.No.78 of 2021, on the file of DCB, Thanjavur and subsequently, the case was
transferred to EOW, Trichy and the case was altered for the offences under
Sections 406, 420 I.P.C., and Section 5 of TNPID Act, and after investigation,
charge sheet was laid for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) I.P.C.,
and 5 of TNPID and under Sections 3, 5, 21(1)(2)(3), 23, 25 of BUDS Act 2019,
that the respondent police has found out that 6557 depositors deposited Rs.417
Crores and that 154 vehicles came to be purchased in the name of the said
Kamaludeen, Rahana Begum, Absal Rahman and Abdul Kani and by their
concerns. According to the prosecution, the Government has already passed a
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.188 Home (Police) Department, dated
20.04.2023 for the attachment of 59 vehicles out of 154 vehicles.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:54:05 am )
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1249 of 2024
10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the
Government has already passed necessary orders under Section 3 of TNPID Act
for attachment of vehicles and in pursuance of the same, 28 vehicles were
already handed over to the competent authority by the respondent police to take
further proceedings.
11. The learned Special Judge, considering the materials available on
record, has observed that the proceedings under Section 3 of TNPID Act has
already been completed with regard to the vehicle in dispute and that since it is
an economic offence, the attachment of properties under Section 3 of TNPID Act
is very essential for safeguarding the interest of the depositors and that since the
property was already attached as per the Government Order, the competent
authority has to proceed under Section 4(3) of TNPID Act to make an ad-interim
attachment absolute and for the sale of the property. As rightly contended by the
learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side), the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court relied on by the petitioner in Sunderbhal Ambalal Desai Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, cannot be made applicable to the case on
hand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:54:05 am )
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1249 of 2024
12. Considering the above and also taking note of the proceedings under
the TNPID Act, the impugned order dismissing the petition filed under Section
457 Cr.P.C., cannot be found fault with. Consequently, this Court concludes that
the revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
30.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
SSL
To
The Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of
Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:54:05 am )
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1249 of 2024
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
SSL
Pre-Delivery order made in
30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:54:05 am )
