Dismissed

The Addl Supdt of Police v. Sathish

Madras HC7 Apr 2017CRL RC/15/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State filed a Criminal Revision to dismiss the order directing the return of a seized vehicle. The court dismissed the revision, holding that since the competent authority had already confiscated the vehicle via a prior order, no further adjudication was required in this revision.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision dismissed; no further order required in the revision since vehicle already confiscated.

The Addl Supdt of Police Vs Sathish — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

CRL.R.C.No.15 of 2014

¶6

The State:

¶7

The Additional Superintendent of Police, (Prohibition & Enforcement Wing) Villupuram District. (Cr.No.187 of 2008)

… Petitioner

Vs.

Satish

… Respondent

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 19.06.2009 in C.A.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram and revising the order issued in Crl.M.P.No.2113 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, dated 14.07.2008 and allow the Criminal Revision.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. R. Ravichandran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶14

For Respondent : No Appearance

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The revision has been filed against the order of allowing the respondent's application filed under Section 451 r/w.457 IPC to return the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 31 U 7038.

¶17

The respondent is an accused in Cr.No.187 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 4(1-A), 4(1) (aaa) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act r/w 5,6,11 Tamil Nadu Rectified Sprit Rules. The vehicle involved in the crime was seized by the petitioner. The respondent claiming to be the owner of the vehicle filed the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C., is seeking the return of the vehicle. The trial Court dismissed the same on the ground that the confiscation proceedings are pending before the competent Authority. Challenging the same, the accused has filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, which ordered for return of vehicle, pending the confiscation proceedings. Challenging the same, the present Revision petition has been filed by the State.

¶18

Though notice has been served on the respondent and his name was printed in the cause list, none appear for the respondent.

¶19

Today, when the matter was taken up, learned

¶20

Government Advocate [Crl.Side] submitted that already by an order dated 02.07.2008, the competent Authority has confiscated the vehicle.

¶21

In view of the same, nothing remains for

¶22

adjudication, since already the vehicle has been confiscated no further order is required in this Criminal Revision.

¶23

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶24

07.04.2017

¶25

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

¶26

kmi

¶27

¶28

The Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram.

¶29

The Judicial Magistrate Court, Gingee.

¶30

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶31

V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.

¶32

kmi

¶33

Crl.R.C.No.15 of 2014

¶34

07.04.2017

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

The Addl Supdt of Police v. Sathish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Addl Supdt of Police v. Sathish

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

Ambedkumar, Aged 52 Years Vs State by

K.Raviramakrishnan, M/A-44 Yrs Vs P.Velusamy, M/A-52 Years

Palanisamy Vs S.N.Sarojini

M/S.Thirumala Wall Decors Vs Dhanabakkiyam

Mrs.Lakshmi (F) 46 Vs Inspector of Police

M/S.Sri Renga Group of Vs State Rep by the