Allowed

Kantha Praveen Mehta v. State Rep. by

Madras HC14 Oct 2015CRL RC/1019/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed criminal revisions challenging orders dismissing appeals against dismissal of claims for refund of court deposits. The High Court held that since amounts were for appearance security and not confiscated, lower courts erred in rejecting the claims, setting aside impugned orders and permitting refunds.

What did the court decide?

Concurrent orders set aside; applications for recovery of deposits (Rs.1 Lakh and Rs.10,000) allowed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Kantha Praveen Mehta Vs State Rep. by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 14.10.2015

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice A.SELVAM

¶5

Crl. R.C.Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2015

¶6

Kantha Praveen Mehta .. Petitioner in Crl.R.C.1019/2015 Kumar Mehta .. Petitioner in Crl.R.C.1020/2015

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep.by Inspector of Police SPE:CBI:EOW Chennai .. Respondent in both Crl.R.Cs.

¶9

Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.1019/2015: Revision under Sections 397 r/w sec 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for records connected with Crl.A.No.274 of 2014 on the file of XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras challenging the orders in M.P.No.1019 of 2014 in C.C.No.3888 of 1998 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 8 and set aside the order dated 15.10.2014.

¶10

Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.1020/2015: Revision under Sections 397 r/w sec 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for records connected with Crl.A.No.276 of 2014 on the file of XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras challenging the orders in M.P.No.1018 of 2014 in C.C.No.3888 of 1998 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 8 and set aside the order dated 15.10.2014.

¶11

COMMON ORDER

¶12

These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed against the concurrent orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1018 of 2014 and 1019 of 2014 in C.C.No.3888 of 1998 and in Criminal Appeal Nos.274 and 276 of 2014 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶13

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

¶14

Egmore, Chennai as well as 18th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶15

In both petitions, it is stated that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 3 in Calendar Case No.3888 of 1998 and as per the order passed by the Court, the petitioner found in M.P.No.1018 of 2014 has deposited Rs.1 Lakh into Court and likewise the petitioner found in M.P.No.1019 of 2014 has deposited Rs.10,000/- into Court. Further it is averred in both petitions that in C.C.No.3888 of 1998, judgment has been passed by the trial court and under such circumstances, these petitions have been filed for getting the amounts mentioned therein.

¶16

The trial court has dismissed both petitions. Against the dismissal order passed by the trial court, Criminal Appeal Nos.274 and 276 of 2014 have been preferred on the file of the first appellate court.

¶17

The first appellate court, after hearing arguments of both sides, has dismissed both Criminal Appeals. Against the concurrent orders passed by the courts below, present Criminal Revision Cases have been preferred at the instance of the petitioners as revision petitioners.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has contended that as per the directions of the court, both the petitioners have deposited the amounts mentioned in the petitions and the same have not been confiscated to the Government at the time of disposal of Calendar Case No.3888 of 1998. Under the said circumstances, these petitions have been filed for getting the amounts mentioned therein, but the courts below without considering the ownership of the amounts mentioned in the petition, have erroneously rejected claim of the petitioners and therefore, the concurrent orders passed by the courts below are liable to be interfered with.

¶19

The learned Special Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded the factual aspects put forth on the side of the petitioners.

¶20

On the basis of the contentions put forth on either side, it is easily discernible to the effect that the petitioner found in Crl.M.P.No.1018 of 2014 has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as per the direction of the court. Likewise, the petitioner found in Crl.M.P.No.1019 of 2014 has deposited Rs.10,000/- into court as per the direction of the court.

¶21

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

¶22

As rightly pointed out on the side of the petitioners, the amounts deposited by them have not been confiscated to the Government and the said amounts have been deposited only to secure appearance of the petitioners in Calendar Case No.3888 of 1998.

¶23

Considering the fact that the amounts mentioned in both the petitions belong to the petitioners respectively and also considering that no specific order has been passed so far with regard to the said amounts by a competent court, the petitioners are entitled to receive the same. The courts below, without considering that no confiscation order has been passed in respect of the said amounts, have erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioners. In view of the discussions made earlier, it is clear that the concurrent orders passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside.

¶24

In fine, these Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. The concurrent orders passed by the courts below in M.P.No.1018 of 2014 and 1019 of 2014 in C.C.No.3888 of 1998 and also in Criminal Appeal Nos.274 and 276 of 2014 are set aside and the petitions filed in M.P.No.1018 of 2014 and 1019 of 2014 in C.C.No.3888 of 1998 are allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶25

sd/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(CS-III) /TRUE COPY/ SUB-ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶26

ajr To

¶27

The XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai

¶28

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 8

¶29

Inspector of Police, SPE:CBI:EOW, Chennai

¶30

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶31

+2 CC to MR. R.Loganathan Advocate. SR.NOs. 56367 & 56368 Crl.R.C.Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2015

¶32

CO-CA JD 30/10/2015

¶33

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

Kantha Praveen Mehta v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kantha Praveen Mehta v. State Rep. by

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

Theerthagiri Vs the Inspector of Police

Venkatesan Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Dinesh Kumar Vs Jegath Surana @Jegath Singh

Karunanidhi Vs the Asst. Commissioner of

G.Anandan Vs the Inspector of Police

Dr.J.Joel Vs Chakkaravarthy Daniel @