Allowed

Mariappan v. State represented by Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Dec 2025CRL RC/2833/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision challenging an order dismissing an application for return of seized cash. The Court held that police cannot seize cash under Section 102 CrPC unless it is stolen or suspected to be evidence. The burden is on the State to prove illegal acquisition. Interim custody was granted to the petitioner subject to execution of a bond.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody of seized cash of Rs.6,68,000/- handed over to the petitioner upon executing a bond of Rs.3,00,000/- with two sureties and filing an affidavit of undertaking to return the cash as dire

Mariappan Vs State represented by Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL RC No. 2833 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

CRL RC No. 2833 of 2025 and CRL MP No.24537 of 2025

¶7

Mariappan S/o.Madasami, 24, Shreepuram, Greenpark, Senthur Garden, Kittampalayam Village, Mahalingapuram, Coimbatore.

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

State represented by Inspector of Police Thondamuthur Police Station, Coimbatore District. Crime No.210/2024.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER

¶13

Criminal Revision is filed under Section 442 of BNSS, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore in C.M.P.No. 7136 of 2025 against Crime No. 210/2024 dated 01.08.2025.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): D.Parventhan

¶15

For Respondent(s): Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the

¶18

1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

CRL RC No. 2833 of 2025

¶21

order passed in C.M.P.No.7136 of 2025, dismissing his application seeking return of cash of Rs.6,68,000/-, which was seized from the petitioner's premises on 18.02.2025 in connection with the investigation in Crime No.7136 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 303(2) of BNS r/w Section 21(1) of MMDR Act and later altered to Sections 111, 303(2), 318, 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) of BNS and Section 21(1) of MMDR Act.

¶22

It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.210 of 2024 for illegally mining the sand from the patta land belonging to one Karuppaswamy; and that during the course of the search of his premises, cash of Rs.6,68,000/- was found and the same was seized from the petitioner.

¶23

The petitioner sought the return of the said cash of Rs.6,68,000/before the learned Magistrate. The said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the petitioner had not established the source of the said cash and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for return of the cash.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is engaged in other businesses and that the cash was kept in the house for the purpose of treating the petitioner's wife, who was suffering from an

¶25

2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

CRL RC No. 2833 of 2025

¶28

ailment. He further submitted that the respondent has no jurisdiction to seize the cash under Section 102 of Cr.P.C (corresponding to Section 106 of BNS) and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶29

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) per contra submitted

¶30

that the petitioner had not established that the cash was earned from legal sources and therefore, the seizure cannot be faulted and that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶31

It is not the case of the respondent that the cash seized from the petitioner's premises is stolen property or that it created suspicion of a commission of a cognizable offence. The respondent has no jurisdiction to seize the cash or any property unless one of the conditions stipulated under Section 102 of Cr.P.C, is satisfied.

¶32

Be that as it may, the learned Magistrate held that the petitioner had not proved the source of the cash. However, it is for the respondent to establish that the petitioner had illegally acquired the money found in his premises. For that purpose, the respondents ought to have invoked Section 107 of BNSS for attachment of the property. Therefore this Court is inclined to hand over the interim custody of the cash to the petitioner with liberty to invoke Section 107 of BNSS if the conditions thereof are fulfilled. Accordingly, the revision is

¶33

3 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

CRL RC No. 2833 of 2025

¶36

allowed and the interim custody of the cash is directed to be handed over to the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶37

(i)The petitioner shall execute a bond for sum of Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees

¶38

Three Lakhs only] with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court-VI, Coimbatore.

¶39

(ii) The petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking stating that the

¶40

said sum of Rs.6,68,000/- shall be returned as and when it is directed to be returned by the Judicial Magistrate Court-VI, Coimbatore.

¶41

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶42

closed.

¶43

19-12-2025

¶44

dpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

¶45

The learned Judicial Magistrate Court-VI, Coimbatore.

¶46

2.The Inspector of Police Thondamuthur Police Station, Coimbatore District. Crime No.210/2024.

¶47

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶48

4 of 5

¶49

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

¶50

CRL RC No. 2833 of 2025

¶51

SUNDER MOHAN J.

¶52

dpa

¶53

CRL RC No. 2833 of 2025

¶54

19-12-2025

¶55

5 of 5

¶56

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

Mariappan v. State represented by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariappan v. State represented by 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

Dharmaraj Vs State Represented by

Mr.Rajan @ Rajan Manikandan Vs The State rep by its The Inspector of Police

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S.Coromandal Indag Products (P) Limited

R.Varadarassou Vs The Union Territory of Puducherry rep by the Inspector of Police

B.K.Sasikumar Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

N.Babu Vs D.Umamageshwari