Partly allowed

S.Nizamuddin, Male/Aged 61 Yrs v. State by

Madras HC14 Jun 2017CRL RC/780/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the court quashed conditions preventing the petitioner from alienating property upon its return, relying on a Delhi High Court order based on the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai.

What did the court decide?

Conditions prohibiting alienation and production were deleted; directive to take photographs and record panchanama issued for property return.

S.Nizamuddin, Male/Aged 61 Yrs Vs State by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.06.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl. Revision Case No.780 of 2017

¶6

S.Nizamuddin ... Petitioner

¶7

//vs//
1. State by the Inspector of Police,
D3, Podanur Police Station,
Coimbatore.
2. Abbas @ Mottai Abbas, S/o.Vetticherry,
No.10/10, Royal Nagar, Karumbukadai,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.M.P.No.671 of 2016, dated 01.02.2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore and to setaside the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekanandan For Respondents for R1 : Mr.R.Ravichandran (Gov. Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER

¶10

Aggrieved with the order dated 01.02.2016 in C.M.P.No.671 of 2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore, imposing a condition while returning the property to the petitioner, viz., the petitioner shall not alienate, sell, alter the case property, the present revision has been filed.

¶11

The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime Number 601 of 2015, for an offence under Section 380 of IPC, alleging that some jewels have been stolen from his house. Subsequently, the above jewels were recovered. After recovery, the petitioner filed an application, seeking return of jewels. While allowing the application filed by the petitioner, the Court below, imposed the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

"1. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.5,00,000/-

¶14

The petitioner shall not alienate, sell, alter the case property.

¶15

The petitioner shall produce the property as and when this Court required.

¶16

A photograph of the property has to be taken and signatures of the accused, petitioner and police to be obtained in it."

¶17

Now, being aggrieved with the second condition, viz., "The petitioner shall not alienate, sell, alter the case property", the present revision has been filed.

¶18

Heard Mr.R.Vivekanandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), learned counsel for the respondents.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in a similar circumstances, the petitioner already filed an application for return of goods for other set of properties, wherein also, a similar condition was imposed and he challenged the same by way of Criminal Revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.373 of 2017 and this court allowed the Revision, by passing the following orders:-

¶20

"4. Following the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638), this Court deletes conditions Nos.2 and 3 viz., '(2)The Petitioner shall not alienate, sell, alter the case property and (3)The petitioner shall produce the property as and when this court required.' Instead, Court below is directed to cause photographs of the jewels to be taken and record panchanama thereof, the photographs taken shall be read as secondary evidence during trial and production of jewels shall be dispensed with. Such photographs shall be attested by Investigation Officer, accused as well as by petitioner to whom custody is to be handed over; and the jewels shall then be returned to the petitioner, who shall be at liberty to deal with the same in such manner as considered appropriate. In all other aspects, the order of Court below shall prevail."

¶21

In the above circumstances, a similar order can be passed in this revision also.

¶22

Accordingly, this Court deletes conditions Nos.2 and 3 viz., '(2) The Petitioner shall not alienate, sell, alter the case property and (3) The petitioner shall produce the property

¶23

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

¶24

as and when this court required.' Instead, Court below is directed to cause photographs of the jewels to be taken and record panchanama thereof, the photographs taken shall be read as secondary evidence during trial and production of jewels shall be dispensed with. Such photographs shall be attested by Investigation Officer, accused as well as by petitioner to whom custody is to be handed over; and the jewels shall then be returned to the petitioner, who shall be at liberty to deal with the same in such manner as considered appropriate. In all other aspects, the order of Court below shall prevail.

¶25

The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of with the above direction.

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
r n s
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate VII,
Coimbatore.
2. -Do- thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Coimbatore.
3. The Inspector of Police,
D3, Podanur Police Station,
Coimbatore.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.R.Vivekanandan, Advocate Sr. 42681
Crl. Revision Case No.780 of 2017
SV(CO)
VR(28/06/2017)

¶27

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

S.Nizamuddin, Male/Aged 61 Yrs v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Nizamuddin, Male/Aged 61 Yrs v. State by

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

B.Cecilia Snegalatha, Aged Vs L.P.Kaniammal

M.Moosa Vs S.v.Rajalinga Raja

Victor, Male Aged About 35 Yrs Vs State Rep.by

Devi Mohan, F/a 33 Years, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Dr.Kannan, Aged 69 Yrs Vs State Rep.by

A.Jeevakarunyam, Aged 58 Years Vs State Rep. by