Partly allowed

Selvam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Dec 2011CRL RC/1676/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision against an order dismissing a prayer for return of seized money. The Court directed the lower judiciary to return the amount but imposed specific conditions including detailing a panchanama, recording a videograph in the presence of court officers, and obtaining a bond from the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the lower court to return the seized amount of Rs. 6,07,500/- after verifying quantum via detailed panchanama, recording a videograph, and obtaining a bond from the petitioner.

Selvam Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 08.12.2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1676 of 2011

¶6

Selvam

¶7

.. Petitioner/Accused

¶8

¶9

State represented by Inspector of Police, V & A.C.Kancheepuram. Crime No.13/AC/06

¶10

.. Respondent/Complainant

¶11

Criminal Revision filed under sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 08.08.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.No.1025 of 2011 in Special Case No.4 of 2008.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Varadhan For Respondent : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶13

This revision arises against the order of the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1025 of 2011 in Special Case No.4 of 2008 dated 08.08.2011.

¶14

A case stands registered against the petitioner in Crime No.13/AC/06 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that he accepted a bribe of Rs.750/- from one Rajalakshmi Ammal on 06.11.2006 at his office premises. Pursuant thereto, the residence of the petitioner was searched and an amount of Rs.6,07,500/-was seized. Presently, charge sheet stands filed in the case in Crime No.13/AC/06 and it is pending trial in Special Case No.4 of 2008. Initially, though a case in Crime No.24/AC/2007 for offence u/s.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner for holding assets disproportionate to his known source of income, further action in respect thereof was dropped.

¶15

The Court below has dismissed the petition seeking return of the amount of Rs.6,07,500/- seized from the petitioner on the reasoning that disciplinary proceedings were pending before the

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

Tribunal and only after the conclusion of the enquiry therein it could be decided whether it was the property of the petitioner. The Court below further observed that on the petition of investigating officer, the records relating to the case registered in Crime No.24/AC/2007 for offence u/s.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, had been forwarded to the Tribunal. It failed to see that the money came to be seized from the petitioner pursuant to investigation in the case in Crime No.13/AC/06 relating to offence under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court below observed that the amount is also one of the item involved in the case relating to disproportionate assets and therefore, it could not be ascertained whether the amount is properly accounted or not.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶19

In circumstances where the money return of which is sought was seized in connection with the case registered for offences under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and criminal proceedings in respect of Crime No.24/AC/2007 for offence u/s.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stand dropped, there can be no embargo against return of monies seized to the petitioner. However, as an abundant caution, this Court directs the Court below to cause return of monies seized from the petitioner after:

¶20

(a) getting detailed proper panchanama prepared of such notes. The detailed panchanama of the currency notes in question should be drawn by such Court Officer as designated by the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, in the presence of two panchayatdars and in the actual and physical presence of the Presiding Officer of the trial Court.

¶21

(b) causing a videograph of such currency notes at the expense of the

¶22

petitioner

¶23

The videograph shall be taken in the presence of such Court Officer as designated by the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and two panchayatdars and the same shall be preserved by the trial Court to be marked during trial. A certificate is to be recorded by the court officer as also the two panchayatdars and the person recording the videograph informing the place, time of recording the same. Such certificate shall also be marked along with the videograph in the course of trial.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

¶26

¶27

Sd/
Assistant Registrar
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chengalpattu.
2.The Inspector of Police,
V & A.C.Kancheepuram.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.M.Varadhan Advocate Sr.74845
Crl.R.C.No.1676 of 2011
SV(CO)
rvr 05/01/2012

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Selvam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Viji @Vijayakumar Vs State Rep by

Ambicapathy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ramesh Vs Inspector of Police

Saraswathy Vs Babu

E.K.Palanisamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Major.K.Mathews Vs S.Manivannan