Dismissed

S.Kumar v. K.Ananda Subbiah

Madras HC5 Mar 2020CRL RC(MD)/514/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision petition wherein the petitioner sought to set aside the return of three specific material objects to their owners. The Court held that the revision is not maintainable as the petitioner did not appeal the acquittal, and no perversity was established in the appellate court's confirmation.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

S.Kumar Vs K.Ananda Subbiah — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.514 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.03.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.514 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶7

S.Kumar ... Petitioner / Appellant / Defacto Complainant

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.K.Ananda Subbiah 2.R.Sathyanarayanan 3.State through S.I., of Police, Poovathi Police Station, In Crime No.155 of 2013 ... Respondents / 3^rd parties

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in C.A.No.7 of 2013 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai on 03.07.2015 confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai in C.C.No.92 of 2008, dated 08.08.2008 and set aside the same in respect of M.O.4, M.O.23 and M.O.26 the amount of Rs.2,92,500/- by allowing this revision.

¶11

For Petitioner: Mr.S.Nateshraja For R3 : Ms.S.Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below.

¶14

2.The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶15

3.The case of the prosecution is that one Sathappa Chettiar was running a textile mill under the name and style of Kumar Textile Mills near Poovanthi. Since he was not able to run the mill as profitable, he entered into an agreement on conversion basis with one Anantha Subbiah, owner of the Kaveri Hi-Tech Spares and the said Anantha Subbiah executed a power of attorney in favour of Sathya Narayanan and they entered into an agreement and the mill was functioning for sometime, thereafter, closed. While

¶16

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

¶17

1/3

¶18

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.514 of 2015

¶19

so, on 18.12.2003, some thieves entered into the mill and they had stolen the electric weighing machines, yawns and other articles worth about Rs.4,27,000/-. Therefore, the law enforcing agency / third respondent has registered a case under Sections 457 and 380 IPC in Poovanthi Police Station in Crime No.155 of 2013 against the accused persons, who were arrived as accused before the trial Court.

¶20

4.On the side of the prosecution, the third respondent has examined P.W.1 to P.W.14 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.47 as well as M.O.1 to M.O.26. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on the side of the accused persons. After trial, the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons and ordered for returning the property to the respective owners. Aggrieved the said return of property to the respective owners, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.07 of 2013. However, the Lower Appellate Court, by its order dated 03.07.2015, has dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same the present Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

¶21

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defacto complainant and he entered into an agreement with respective property owners and the said property was stolen by the accused persons. However, without ascertaining the ownership of the property, the trial Court has ordered for returning the property to some other persons, which is unsustainable one. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

¶22

6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the third respondent would submit that after elaborate trial and ascertaining the ownership of the property, the respective material objects were returned to the owners, in which, this Court need not interfere with and no appeal was filed against the acquittal. This revision is only filed in respect of the return of the properties ie., M.O.4, M.O.23 and M.O.26. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶23

7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal order and he preferred the revision only in respect of return of property, particularly, M.O.4, M.O.23 and M.O.26. However, the said issue was elaborately considered by the Lower Appellate Court and the order of the trial Court is confirmed.

¶24

8.Further, this Court entertains the revision only to correct the illegality of the order or if the order of the trial Court is perverse. In the present case, the perversity is not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ established. Hence, this Court do not find any error in the order

¶25

2/3

¶26

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.514 of 2015

¶27

passed by the Lower Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court.

¶28

9.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar (AS) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

Myr To 1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai. 3.The Sub Inspector of Police Poovathi Police Station. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.C.ARUL VADIVEL@SEKAR, Advocate ( SR-10224[F] dated 05/03/2020 )

¶30

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.514 of 2015 05.03.2020 KM/(23.03.2020) 3P 6C

¶31

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

¶32

3/3

S.Kumar v. K.Ananda Subbiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kumar v. K.Ananda Subbiah

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

Balasubramani Vs the Inspector of Police

Gnanamuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

L. Jayakumar, M/70 Vs Grance Vinitha

M. Nagarajan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Marimuthu Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

B.Soorya Prabha Vs the Deputy Superintendent of