Allowed

V.Prasanna v. State Rep by

Madras HC19 Dec 2024CRL RC/1617/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order denying return of seized cash from a non-accused individual. The petition, filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., argued that mere insufficient evidence and lack of discovery under Section 27 Evidence Act failed to justify indefinite custody. The Court directed return on execution of bond.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the application for return of seized cash is set aside; cash return ordered subject to execution of personal bond and undertaking.

V.Prasanna Vs State Rep by — Corruption | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.12.2024

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2023

¶7

V.Prasanna . .. Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Police Training College, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. . .. Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to allow this petition and set aside the order dated 20.07.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4944 of 2022 on the file of learned Special Judge, Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, Chennai.

¶11

For petitioner . .. Mr.V.Manoharan For respondent . .. Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The revision has been filed challenging the dismissal of the petitioner's

¶14

application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking return of the

¶15

cash seized from the petitioner during the course of investigation in Crime No.16 of 2022.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:1/6

¶17

Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2023

¶18

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 05.08.2022, the respondent

¶19

conducted a search of the petitioner's premises and found unaccounted cash of Rs.27,47,500/- and seized the same. The petitioner sought for return of the said amount, which was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner had received cash from persons, who had collected huge deposits from the public, are accused of offences under the TNPID Act and that further investigation is being conducted by the respondent.

¶20

3.The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the cash was seized on 05.08.2022; that the respondent is yet to collect any evidence to establish that the cash was handed to the petitioner by the accused, who had allegedly cheated the general public of the deposit amount, except for relying upon the confession of an accused, who had stated that the cash was handed over to the petitioner.

¶21

4.The respondent had filed a counter stating that one

¶22

Gnanasekaran/A20 in the case had confessed that the collected deposit amount from the public was handed over to the petitioner by him.

¶23

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that since further

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:2/6

¶25

Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2023

¶26

investigation is pending and there is evidence to show that the money seized from the petitioner is unaccounted, the cash may not be returned at this stage and sought for dismissal of the revision.

¶27

6.Admittedly, the petitioner is not an accused in the case. The cash was seized from the petitioner on 05.08.2022. Except for the statement made by A20, there is no other evidence to show that the money seized from the petitioner were the deposits collected from the general public. The cash was also not seized pursuant to the confession of an accused and therefore not a discovery of a fact to make it admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In such circumstances, the cash, which is under seizure for more than two years, cannot be held in custody for an indefinite period. Hence, this Court is of the view that cash can be returned to the petitioner on stringent conditions subject to the outcome of the further investigation and the trial.

¶28

7.Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.4944 of 2022 on the file of learned Special Judge, Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, Chennai , is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed on

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:3/6

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2023

¶31

the following terms:

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, Chennai;

¶33

(ii) The petitioner shall return a sum of Rs.27,47,500/as and when required by the trial Court either during the course of further investigation or during the course of trial and the petitioner shall also file an affidavit of undertaking that he would return the sum of Rs.27,47,500/- as and when required by the learned Special Judge.

¶34

19.12.2024

¶35

Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rsi

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:4/6

¶37

Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2023

¶38

¶39

1.The Special Judge,

¶40

Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, Chennai.

¶41

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Police Training College, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083.

¶42

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:5/6

¶44

Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2023

¶45

SUNDER MOHAN, J

¶46

rsi

¶47

Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2023

¶48

19.12.2024

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:6/6

V.Prasanna v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Prasanna 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

S.Annamalai Vs v.Sankar

Sriram Vs the Revenue Officer

A.C. Javith Imthiyas Vs K.Regina

Jamal Vs State Rep. by

Jegajothi Vs Rafi Ahamed

Balaji Vs State Represented by