Dismissed

Periannan v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Feb 2023CRL RC/90/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a trial court order that rejected a petitioner's claim for interim custody and identification of stolen gold sovereigns within mixed gold ingots recovered from an accused.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition seeking to set aside the order dismissing the request for identification of stolen gold in recovered ingots was dismissed.

Periannan Vs Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.90 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.90 of 2023

¶7

Periannan, ... Petitioner -vsThe State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Velur Police Station, Namakkal District. ... Respondent (Crime No.263 of 2022)

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of dismissal dated 09.12.2022 made in C.M.P.No.6370 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Paramathi, Namakkal District by allowing the present criminal revision petition.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Deepanuday For Respondent : Mr.V.Meganathan Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

1 of 6

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Crl.R.C.No.90 of 2023

¶14

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the impugned order passed by the Learned Judicial Paramathi, Namakkal District, in C.M.P.No.6370 of 2022, dated 09.12.2022.

¶15

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Sivakumar gave a complaint before the respondent police for the theft of 28 sovereign gold jewels and silver ornaments worth about Rs.7,000/- from his house. Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.263 of 2022, on 01.08.2022, for the offences under Sections 454, 457, 380 of I.P.C.

¶16

3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the course of investigation, the respondent police arrested the accused Muthuraj. In the confession of the said Muthuraj, he admitted that he had committed theft in the house of the petitioner and on subsequent verification, the petitioner came to know that only 15 sovereigns of gold jewels has been stolen from his house. But, the

¶17

2 of 6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Crl.R.C.No.90 of 2023

¶20

respondent police recovered 130 grams of gold ingots from the accused, which was not in separate gold jewels. In the confession, the accused disclosed that, he had committed theft from various houses. Under these circumstances, the trial Court dismissed to return the gold ingots to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner seeks for interim custody.

¶21

4. T he Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent submitted that the gold jewels as detailed by the petitioner in the complaint are not available as it is. In view of the confession of the accused/Muthuraj, he had committed theft in various houses and all the jewels have been converted into gold ingots. Only 120 grams of gold ingots is available, which was not in separate form of jewels. Under these circumstances, the trial Court dismissed the petition and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court and pleaded to dismiss.

¶22

5. On perusal of the records, the fact reveals that, on 01.08.2022, the petitioner's brother-in-law Siva Kumar gave a complaint with regard to the theft of

¶23

3 of 6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Crl.R.C.No.90 of 2023

¶26

the 28 sovereigns of gold jewels with silver ornaments in the petitioner's house. Based upon that, a case has been registered in crime No.263 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 454, 457, 380 of I.P.C. On investigation, the respondent police arrested the accused/Muthuraj and recorded the confession statement of the accused, in which, he had disclosed that he had committed theft in various houses from different places and recovered 150 grams of gold ingots from the accused, which is not in the form of separate gold jewels. Under these circumstances, the respondent police have not identified how much gold sovereigns of the petitioner's is mixed with the gold ingots. Hence, there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court and no merit in the revision. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court.

¶27

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶28

01.02.2023

¶29

Index :Yes/No. Internet :Yes/No. bsm

¶30

4 of 6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Crl.R.C.No.90 of 2023

¶33

To,

¶34

The Judicial Magistrate Paramathi, Namakkal District.

¶35

The Inspector of Police, Velur Police Station, Namakkal District.

¶36

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶37

5 of 6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Crl.R.C.No.90 of 2023

¶40

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.,

¶41

bsm

¶42

Crl.R.C.No.90 of 2023

¶43

01.02.2023

¶44

6 of 6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Periannan v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Periannan v. Inspector of Police

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

Michael @ Manikandan Vs Inspector of Police

Jeeva Vs State Rep by

S.Prabhakaran Vs R.Vadivel

R.Durai Vs Inspector of Police

M.Narasimhan Vs Forest Ranger

G.Loganathan Vs the State Rep by the Inspector of Police