Dismissed

Thennarasu v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC4 Jan 2021CRL RC/1260/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought return of a lorry involved in the theft of sand via Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that since the investigation was pending and the charge sheet was not filed, the vehicle could not be released at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The return of the vehicle and interim custody sought by the petitioner was refused.

Thennarasu Vs the State Rep.by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.01.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

Criminal Revision Case No.1260 of 2020

¶6

Thennarasu ... Petitioner

¶7

The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Poraiyar Police Station, Nagapattinam District. (Crime No.753 of 2020) ... Respondent

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.2525 of 2020 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam dated 25.09.2020 and set aside the same subsequently grant interim custody of vehicle Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.TN 51 F 8223.

¶9

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 25.09.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2525 of 2020, on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., seeking return of vehicle bearing No.TN 51 F 8223, which was involved in the offence under Sections 379 and 430 of IPC R/W Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.

¶10

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle Tipper Lorry and he used the same only for agricultural purpose and not for any illegal transportation of sand as stated by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks return of the vehicle.

¶11

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

¶12

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that investigation has not yet been completed and charge sheet has also not been filed and hence the vehicle in question cannot be released at this stage.

¶13

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶14

5.It is seen that in the present case, investigation is pending and charge sheet has not yet been filed. This Court time and again gave a direction that stringent action should be taken in the case of theft of sand. Hence, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner in this Criminal Revision Case.

¶15

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ms
To
1.The District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Poraiyar Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
VD(CO)
SM/08/02/2021

¶16

Crl. R.C. No.1260 of 2020

¶17

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

Thennarasu v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thennarasu 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

Manivannan.M Vs the District Collector

Gopalasamy. v Vs the Tahsildar

Tharageshwari Vs The Superintendent Engineer

Balachandar Vs State by

Sathiyaseelan Vs State Rep.by

S.Paulraj Vs State Rep.by