Allowed

S.Sathish Kumar v. the State Rep by

Madras HC15 Nov 2019CRL OP/28148/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought return of a deposited sale deed to assist as a list witness. Court examined the necessity of the document for prosecution and ordered its return after final report submission.

What did the court decide?

Judicial Magistrate, Alandur directed to return the original sale deed (Document No. 5532 of 2017) within three working days upon proper identification and acknowledgement.

S.Sathish Kumar Vs the State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :15.11.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.28148 of 2019

¶6

S.Sathish Kumar .. Petitioner

¶7

.. Vs ..

¶8

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police CCB-Team II, Anti-Land Grabbing Cell Vepery, Chennai.

¶9

Crime No. 17 of 2018 .. Respondent

¶10

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur, to return the original sale deed bearing document No. 5532 of 2017 to the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. A.P.Sathyamurthy

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.T.Shanmugarajeswaran

¶13

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶14

Petition filed seeking return of document which is a sale deed dated 14^th July 2017 and registered as Document No. 5532 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Pammal, which had been submitted by the present petitioner S.Sathish Kumar, son of Mr.Santhanam and residing at Flat No. A-1, Ground Floor, Door No.19, K-Block, 1^st Main Road, 1^st Avenue, Anna Nagar East, Chennai – 600 102 with respect to Cr.No. 17 of 2019 pursuant to order of grant of anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No. 18665 of 2018 dated 13.01.2019 since at that stage, he apprehended arrest from the respondent police. However, it is informed that pursuant to investigation, final report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and the petitioner has actually been ranked as list witness No. 3. He has to assist the prosecution in establishing the case against the accused persons.

¶15

In view of the that fact, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, is directed to return back the original sale deed submitted before the said Court by this Court within

¶16

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

¶17

three working days on proper identification and acknowledgement on filing necessary application.

¶18

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
vsg Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Alandur.
2. The Inspector of Police,
CCB - Team ii, Anti Land Grabbing Cell,
Vepery, Chennai.
3. Thro: The Chief Judicial Magistrate
Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.A.P.Sathyamurthy, Advocate, SR.No.95649
Crl.O.P.No.28148 of 2019
Kak(18/11/2019)

¶19

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

S.Sathish Kumar v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sathish Kumar v. the 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

A.Johnson @Johny Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Dinesh Vs State Rep. by

R.Neelakandan Vs State Rep by

Dhamodaran Prakash Vs C.Ve.Shanmugam

Santheep Vs the State Rep by

Thanigai Arasu Vs the Sub Inspector of Police