Disposed

Thamilarasan v. the State Represented by

Madras HC24 Nov 2015CRL RC/1220/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenged conditions imposed on a TASMAC manager regarding seized liquor bottles. The Court directed the lower court to dispense with physical production of bottles by submitting attested photographs, allowing the petitioner to retain operational custody.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the lower court to cause photographs of the liquor bottles to be taken and recorded in panchanama, to be used as secondary evidence, dispensing with the physical production of the b

Thamilarasan Vs the State Represented by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.11.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1220 of 2015

¶6

Tamilarasan .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State Represented by Inspector of Police, City Police Station, Thiruvarur. (Crime No.275/2015) .. Respondent

¶9

Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur passed in C.M.P.No.3969 of 2015 dated 18.06.2015.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R

¶11

This revision challenges the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, passed in C.M.P.No.3969 of 2015 on 18.06.2015.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate [Crl.side].

¶13

On the complaint of the petitioner, who is the Manager of a TASMAC Shop, a case in Crime No.275 of 2015, on the file of the respondent, came to be registered for offences under Sections 457 and 380 II(L)III(V) IPC. Investigation of the case has resulted in recovery of stolen liquor bottles. Thereupon, the petitioner has filed a petition in C.M.P.No.3969 of 2015 seeking relief under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The Court below, under orders dated 18.06.2015, while allowing such petition, has imposed the following conditions:

¶14

“1. I surety for Rs.1,50,000/-

¶15

To produce photo of C.P. Along with C.D. Ligibly.

¶16

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

¶17

To file undertaking affidavit not to alienate, encumber the property and to produce property whenever it is required.”

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that liquor bottles, return of which have been ordered are to be sold by TASMAC within a period of three months and the requirement of the petitioner filing an affidavit of undertaking not to alienate, encumber the property and to produce the same whenever required, will impair the petitioner carrying out his duties. It is further contended that as he is the Manager of the TASMAC shop, requiring him to produce a surety for the value of goods, is unreasonable.

¶19

Finding merits in the submission of learned counsel for

¶20

petitioner, this Court would direct the Court below to effect return of liquor bottles to the petitioner:

¶21

(i)the Court below shall cause photographs of the liquor bottles to be taken and record panchanama thereof, the photographs taken shall be read as secondary evidence during trial and production of liquor bottles shall be dispensed with. Such photographs shall be attested by the Court Officer, photographer as also the petitioner to whom custody is to be handed over; and

¶22

(ii)the liquor bottles shall be handed over to the petitioner who shall be at liberty to deal with the same in such manner as considered appropriate.

¶23

With the above direction, this Criminal Revision is disposed of.

¶24

vsm

¶25

s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶26

True Copy

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur.

¶30

do thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur.

¶31

The Inspector of Police, City Police Station, Thiruvarur

¶32

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

¶33

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶34

vd(co) prk28/1

¶35

Crl.R.C.No.1220 of 2015

¶36

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

Thamilarasan v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thamilarasan v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ponnusamy Vs Sundaresan

M.Pechiyammal Vs M.R.Manjula

R.Arivazhakan Vs P.Kandasamy

K.S.Rajendran Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Ramamurthy Vs the Inspector of Police

Dr.M.R.Muralikrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police