Dismissed

State Rep. by v. K. Mani @ Velumani

Madras HC15 Oct 2014CRL OP/6586/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a Criminal Original Petition filed by the State to set aside an interim order granting custody of a vehicle to the accused became infructuous. A final order confiscating the vehicle in favour of the Government had already been passed by the trial court. The Court dismissed the petition as no relief remained to be granted. (Para 17, 18)

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as infructuous since the final confiscation order has been passed by the trial court.

State Rep. by Vs K. Mani @ Velumani — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 15.10.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

Crl.OP No.6586 of 2008

¶6

State,

¶7

Represented by The Inspector of Police, Seyur Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶8

(Crime No.150/2006) ..Petitioner/Complainant Vs K.Mani @ Velumani ..Respondent/Accused.

¶9

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the impugned order in C.R.P.No.94/2007 dated 23.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur reversing the order in C.M.P.No.5810/2007 dated 23.05.2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate and District Munsif, Avinashi.

¶10

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent :No Appearance ORDER

¶11

The respondent is the accused in Crime No.150/2006 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Cheyur Police Station, Coimbatore District. The said case was registered for offence under Section 302 I.P.c. During the course of investigation, the Car belonging to the respondent/accused bearing registration number TN 09 J 6292 was seized by the police and the same was produced before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi.

¶12

2.The respondent/accused filed a petition in C.M.P.No.5810/2007 before the learned Magistrate seeking interim custody of the said Car. That petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 23.05.2007. As against the same, the respondent filed a revision before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.R.P.No.94/2007. By order dated 23.11.2007, the learned Sessions Judge, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed to return the vehicle for interim custody to the respondent/accused. Challenging the said order of the learned

¶13

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

¶14

Sessions Judge, the Inspector of Police, Seyur Police Station, Coimbatore District, is before this Court with this petition.

¶15

3.Though, notice was ordered to the respondent/accused, the same could not be served and the respondent has not made appearance. Today, I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner and I have also perused the records carefully.

¶16

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since, this Criminal Original Petition has been preferred by the State and the same is pending before this Court, the vehicle was all along in the custody of the trial Court. During the trial of the case, the said vehicle was marked as M.O.23. On completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.35/2009, convicted the accused and in so far as the property namely the Car in question is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge ordered confiscating the same in favour of the Government. But, there was no appeal preferred by the respondent/accused in respect of the said confiscation of the Car. Further, the respondent/accused preferred appeal only in respect of the conviction imposed on him in Crl.A.No.506 of 2013 before this Court. By judgment dated 21.10.2010, this Court dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the conviction passed in S.C.No.35 of 2009.

¶17

5.In my considered opinion, this petition has become infructuous. The order under challenge in this Criminal Original Petition pertains only to a interim custody of the Car in question under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Now, a final order has been passed by the trial Court under Section 452 Cr.P.C., confiscating the Car in favour of the Government. If the respondent/accused is aggrieved by the said confiscation order, it is for him to work out his remedies in the manner known to law.

¶18

6.In view of all the above, nothing survives in this petition, and accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

-s/dAssistant Registrar(Records) Dt:31/10/2014

¶20

True Copy Sub-Assitant Registrar

¶21

¶22

1.The Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

¶23

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

¶24

2.The District Munsif cum

¶25

Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi.

¶26

3.The Inspector of Police, Seyur Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶27

4.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Coimbatore at Tiruppur

¶28

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶29

sai(co) prk6/11

¶30

Crl.OP No.6586 of 2008

¶31

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

State Rep. by v. K. Mani @ Velumani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Rep. by v. K. Mani @ Velumani

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

R.Harish M/a 30 Yrs Vs State Rep by

K.Ramalingam Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Ramasamy M/Age 65 Yrs Vs State Rep by

Mrs.P.Seethalakshmi Vs M/S.Weizmann Forex Ltd.

Jayaprakash Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Sailu Vs Securities and Exchange Borad