Remanded

Kumarasamy v. Union of India

Madras HC14 Mar 2025CRL RC/1395/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court directed remittal of the proceedings to the Principal Special Judge. The Judge was tasked with verifying if a seized mobile seized from a co-accused belonged to the petitioner and to decide the return application on merits. Costs were not awarded.

What did the court decide?

petitioner permitted to file appropriate petition for return; Learned Special Judge directed to verify seizure details and decide on merits.

Kumarasamy Vs Union of India — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 14.03.2025

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2023

¶7

Kumarasamy .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State Represented by Union of India, NCB, Chennai. R.R.No.58 of 2022 in NCB F.No.48/1/2016/22-NCB/MDS

¶10

.. Respondent

¶11

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to set aside the order dated 06.06.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.2218 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Special Judge, (FAC), Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai.

¶12

For petitioner : No appearance

¶13

For respondent: Mr.N.P.Kumar

¶14

Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge (FAC), Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.2218 of 2023, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the petitioner’s request for the return of a Samsung Galaxy A6+ (Black Colour) mobile phone.

¶19

2. Though the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity, he has not come forward to argue the matter. The criminal case pertains to the year 2022. Therefore, this Court is inclined to examine the records from the available materials and decide the revision petition on its merits.

¶20

3. The case was registered against the petitioner and other accused for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(A), 27, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). During the course of investigation, the subject property the "Samsung Galaxy A6+" was seized from one of the accused and produced before the Court. Pending investigation, the petitioner moved the Special Court seeking the return of the seized mobile phone. However, the learned Principal Special Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the cellphone was used in the commission of the crime and that its return would affect

¶21

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

¶22

Page No.2 / 6

¶23

Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2023

¶24

the trial.

¶25

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

¶26

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases, appearing for the State, submitted that the cellphone was not seized from the petitioner but from a co-accused. However, it is noted that the learned Principal Special Judge, in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, has erroneously recorded that the cellphone was seized from the petitioner. The learned Prosecutor further submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed in the case.

¶27

6. In view of the above submissions and the fact that the charge sheet has been filed, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned Principal Special Judge (FAC), Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, by filing an appropriate petition for the return of the cellphone. The learned Special Judge is directed to verify the seizure mahazar and Form 95 to ascertain whether the cellphone was indeed seized from the petitioner. If it is found that the cellphone was not involved in the commission of the crime and its return will not prejudice the trial, the learned Special Judge shall consider the petitioner’s request strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits.

¶28

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

¶29

Page No.3 / 6

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2023

¶31

7. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed

o f. No costs.

14.03.2025

r n s

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2023

¶38

¶39

The Principal Special Judge, (FAC), Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai.

¶40

The Union of India, NCB, Chennai.

¶41

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶42

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

¶43

Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2023

¶44

P.VELMURUGAN, J

¶45

r n s

¶46

Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2023

¶47

14.03.2025

¶48

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

Kumarasamy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumarasamy v. Union of India

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

Kalaiselvan @ Rajgereen Vs R.Poonkuzhali

K.P.C.Raja Vs K.G.Balakrishnan

Ruby Noelina Thoecore Vs Latha

N.Rajkumar Vs State Rep by Inspector of Police

Deepan Vs the Inspector of Police

Venkatraja Vs State Rep.by