Disposed

Midas Communication Technologies Private Ltd. v. State Rep by

Madras HC25 Jun 2024CRL OP/14777/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition seeking return of goods seized by police as case property. The Court held that the Investigating Officer must produce the property before the trial Court for custody directions, and the petitioner should seek temporary custody from the trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to produce seized property before the trial Court.

Midas Communication Technologies Private Ltd. Vs State Rep… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.14777 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.14777 of 2024

¶7

Midas Communication Technologies Private Limited Rep. by its Director, No.1, Kalyani Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 600 041.

.... Petitioner

Versus

The State Rep. by

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, O/o. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶12

Gemini Communication Limited, Rep. by its Liquidator M.S.Viswanathan 15/35, Musfar Jung Bahadur Street, Triplicane, Chennai - 600 005. .... Respondents

¶13

-1-

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.14777 of 2024

¶16

Prayer: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to issue a direction to the first respondent to either handover the goods lying at No.10/15, No.698, Vazhudavur Main Road, Iyyankuttipalayam, Oulgaret Commune, Puducherry - 605 009 to M/s.Gemini Communication Ltd., or in the alternative transfer them to a police godown for safekeeping.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karupasamy

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present Criminal Original Petition is filed to handover the

¶22

goods lying the premises or to remove the goods and handover the vacant possession of the premises.

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner/Company is

¶24

shown as accused in Crime No.69 of 2012. The valuable goods of the petitioner, which are kept in the rented premises now been seized by the police as case property and the premises is sealed. For the said premises, the

¶25

-2-

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.O.P.14777 of 2024

¶28

petitioner is paying rent of Rs.16,000/- per month for more than twelve years. Therefore, he seeks for return of the goods or in alternate to remove

¶29

the goods and store it elsewhere and handover the vacant possession.

¶30

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that

¶31

the investigation in this case has been completed and the final report has also been filed and the property, which is seized and kept in the said premises as case property has to be produced before this Court. Therefore, he opposed for granting either of the relief sought for in this petition.

¶32

This Court finds that admittedly, the property now seized by

¶33

the police belongs to the petitioner/accused. If it is to be marked as case property, the Investigating Officer has to produce it before the Court and get an appropriate direction regarding the custody of the property. If the petitioner/accused wants temporary custody of the property, he can move the

¶34

trial Court and get temporary custody of the property as per the provision contemplated under the Code.

¶35

-3-

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.O.P.14777 of 2024

¶38

DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶39

asi

¶40

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is

disposed of.

25.06.2024

asi

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, O/o. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶46

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.14777 of 2024

¶48

-4-

¶49

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

Midas Communication Technologies Private Ltd. v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Midas Communication Technologies Private Ltd. v. 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

N.Vijayan Vs the State Rep by

P.Thangaraj, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Velmurugan Vs the District Collector

V.Mani Vs the State Represented by

M.Ravi Vs Inspector of Police

S.Sekaran Vs the State Rep. by