The Branch Manager Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

PRAYER : Criminal Review Case filed under 498 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to order in Crl.M.P.No.1136 of 2023 in C.C.No.69 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur and set aside the same in consequences thereof refund of the amount of Rs.61,10,000/- (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs Ten Thousand only) recovered from the accused to the revision petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1136 of 2023 in C.C.No.

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.291 of 2025

¶19

69 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur, this Criminal Revision Case is filed.

¶20

2.The petitioner filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.1136 of 2023, seeking to return an amount of Rs.61,10,000/- which is kept in the credit of the aforesaid C.C. in a fixed deposit. The amount was with respect to bank loan involved by the accused and admittedly as early as during the year 2023, a Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.587 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner herein before this Court, for return of jewelry and the said cash, which was looted from the petitioner bank. This Court by order dated 07.07.2023, passed an order, directed the petitioner bank to dispose of the jewelry of which interim custody was already given to the petitioner bank. However, this Court has made a passing observation in the aforesaid order that the revision petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy with regard to the amount lying with the Indian Overseas Bank, Keeranur Branch, at appropriate time. Pointing out the said observation, Cr.M.P.No.1136 of 2023 came to be filed. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the same, observing that the point of handing over the money, which is lying in fixed deposit could be decided after the final disposal of the C.C. concerned.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner categorically submitted that there is no quarrel about the fact that the entire amount kept in credit of

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.291 of 2025

¶25

C.C.No.69 of 2019 in fixed deposit belong to the bank. Hence, there would not be any impediment for the learned Trial Court, for having passed a favourable order. Having not done so, interference of this Court is necessary.

¶26

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent fairly conceded that the said money has arisen, during the disposal of the gold jewelry looted by the accused. The aspect of the returning of the money will be decided only at the time of conclusion of the trial. 39 witnesses were examined and only two witnesses are yet to be examined. There is no hurry in pressing the Criminal Revision and pressed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.

¶27

5.Heard both sides and carefully perused the materials available on records.

¶28

6.Considering the nature of offence involved and considering the fact that the petitioner is a scheduled bank, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court shall dispose of the case in C.C.No.69 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in strict terms.

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.291 of 2025

¶32

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶33

Mrn

¶34

7.In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No Costs. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to reopen this Revision case, if the case in C.C. is not disposed of within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶35

18.06.2025

¶36

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes Mrn To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶37