Petitioner sought to modify conditions imposed by trial court for return of seized vehicle. Court held the order was final and revisable, rendering the Section 482 Petition non-maintainable, dismissing the plea with liberty to file revision.
Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file revision; original order returned to petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 11.11.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
Crl.OP No.28739 of 2014
S.Saraswathi
.. Petitioner Vs
State rep. By its Sub-Inspector of Police, N-4, Fishing Harbour Police Station, Chennai, Crime No.295/2014 .. Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to modify the condition imposed in Crl.M.P.No.1389/2014 dated 27.08.2014, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, NDPS Chennai.
For Petitioner :Mr.B.Srinivasan For Respondent :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER Seeking to modify the condition imposed in Crl.M.P.No.1389/2014 dated 27.08.2014, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge (NDPS Act cases), Chennai, the petitioner has come up with this petition.
2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.
3.The petitioner happens to be the owner of the vehicle bearing No. TN 05 AE 9615. The said vehicle was seized by the respondent in connection with the case in Crime No.24.2014 and the same was produced before the trial Court. The petitioner filed a petition seeking to return the said vehicle to him. The trial Court passed an order allowing the said petition by imposing certain conditions for return of the vehicle to the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said condition imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.
4.When a specific query was made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is maintainable, when an alternative remedy of filing a revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is available to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to answer the said question.
5.I am of the firm view that since, the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge (NDPS Act cases), Chennai is a final order, it is revisable under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. Thus, I hold that this Criminal Original Petition is not maintainable and accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file appropriate revision against the order in Crl.M.P.No.1389 of 2014 dated 27.08.2014, if he so advised. Registry is directed to return the original order in Crl.M.P.No.1389 of 2014 dated 27.08.2014 to the petitioner to enable him to file a revision.
Sd/Deputy Registrar (Judicial) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar jbm To 1.The Principal Sessions Judge, (NDPS Act Cases), Chennai. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 3. The Sub Inspector of Police N-4, Fishing Harbour Police Station, Chennai, Crl.OP No.28739 of 2014 GJ (CO) kk 25/11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when an alternative remedy of revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is available against a final order.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Saraswathi
State rep. By its Sub-Inspector of Police
S. Nagamuthu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
