Allowed

Raja v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Jun 2016CRL RC(MD)/95/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Madras High Court set aside an order dismissing a petition for interim custody of a two-wheeler used by the petitioner to hunt a peacock. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court held that despite the vehicle's use in the offense, the applicant deserved custody upon executing a bond.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the petition for_interim custody was set aside, and custody was granted to the petitioner subject to a personal bond of Rs.45,000.

Raja Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.06.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS

¶6

C.R.L.RC(MD) No.95 of 2016

¶7

Raja ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ 2^nd Accused

¶8

-vs-

¶9

State rep.by its The Sub-Inspector of Police Thirumayam Police Station Thirumayam Taluk Pudukottai District ... Respondent / Respondent / Complainant

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by Learned District Munsif-cum-Learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, in Cr.M.P.No.5370 of 2015, dated 14.12.2015 and set aside the same and direct the Learned Judicial Magistrate to give interim custody of the Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing registration No.TN-55-AFS-2442.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Prasad

¶12

For Respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This matter is squarely covered by the Apex Court's Judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003 (1) CTC 175 (SC)] .

¶15

2. The revision petitioner herein is A2 in this case. He is stated to have driven Hero Honda Splendor Plus (TN55 AFS2442) in Ponnamaravathi area to hunt Peacocks. The victim is a Peacock. The respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.97 of 2014. Seized the said two-wheeler. Produced it before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam.

¶16

3. In the said Court, the revision petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.5370 of 2015 for interim custody of the said vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. It was opposed to by the prosecution.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned Magistrate, by his Order dated 14.12.2015, dismissed the petition on the ground that the vehicle has been

¶18

¶19

used in the commission of the offence; if the vehicle is given, again he will kill Peacocks and he will also abscond.

¶20

5. The said Order is being challenged by A2.

¶21

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner quoted the

¶22

case law, which has been stated at the outset.

¶23

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted

¶24

that the pitiable plight of the Peacock cannot be lost sight of. In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order.

¶25

8. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions.

¶26

9. The reasons stated in the impugned order are patently wrong. They are unsustainable in law. The ratio in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) squarely applies to this case.

¶27

10. In the circumstances, ordered as under:

¶28

i. The criminal revision is allowed.

¶29

ii. The Order, dated 14.12.2015, passed in Cr.M.P.No.5370 of 2015, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, is set aside.

¶30

iii.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, will give interim custody of the Hero Honda Splendor Plus (TN55 AFS2442) to the revision petitioner.

¶31

iv. The revision petitioner will execute a personal bond for Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate.

¶32

v. A photograph of the said vehicle with the signature of the revision petitioner shall be kept in the case records.

¶33

vi. Until final order is passed by the said Magistrate, the revision petitioner shall not dispose of, alter or change the vehicle.

¶34

vii.The revision petitioner shall cause the production of vehicle as and when so ordered by the said Magistrate.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar (AE)

¶37

/True copy/

¶38

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

To:

¶42

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam.

¶43

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirumayam Police Station, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶44

The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶45

+1 CC to Mr.A.ARUN PRASAD, Advocate, SR No.27290

¶46

C.R.L.RC(MD) No.95 of 2016 01.06.2016

¶47

krk

¶48

SH/PEK/SAR-II:08.06.2016:3P/5C

¶49

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

Raja v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sridhar Vs the State Rep. by Its

A. Selvaraj, Vs the State Rep. by the

K.Kumaran Vs Rep. by Its Divisional Manager

Raymond Vs Anton Selvakumar

Anthony Manuvel Raj Vs the Inspecor of Police

Dharmaraj Vs the Sub Inspector of Police