1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:01.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C(MD)No.886 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 K.K.Sesaiyan :Revision Petitioner -Vs- State through the Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing No.2, Madurai. (Crime No.3 of 2011) :Revision Respondent PRAYER:Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records on the file of the Learned Special Judge, T.N.P.I.D. Court, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.121 of 2008 In C.C.No.36 of 2008 dated 23.08.2011 and set aside the same. For Petitioner:Mr.S.Maheswaran For Respondent:Mr.A.P.Balasubramani,Govt.Advocate(Crl.side) ORDER The Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 23.08.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.121 of 2008 in C.C.No.36 of 2008, on the file of the Special Judge, T.N.P.I.D. Madurai. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person, originally he was not arrayed as an accused as per the FIR registered by the respondent police, subsequently, he was arrayed as A9. The learned counsel further submits that on 10.04.1999 the respondent police had entered into the house of the petitioner and seized jewels for about 1,140 grams. Since the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged offence, the petitioner filed the aforesaid Cr.M.P.No.121 of 2008 seeking an order to return the jewels to his custody. 4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submits that the offence is serious in nature and that the petitioner / accused and the other accused have committed offence of cheating and the case was registered and the amount involved in the case is more than Rs.8,46,00,000/- and there are incriminating materials available against the petitioner/A9, hence he was arrayed as one of the accused. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Government Advocate raised objection against the plea of the petitioner/A9 seeking return of the jewels. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co- accused/A4 filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and got an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 order. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner produced a Xerox copy of the certified copy of the order passed in the petition seeking Special Leave in Appeal (crl) No.7658 of 2007 dated 2.3.2007 wherein it is seen that the following order has been passed: “......... Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's properties are under attachment and as per the provisions of the Impugned Act the attachment will continue. We direct that the respondents shall not bring these attached properties for sale or in furtherance of the said attachment no action shall be taken until further orders.” 6.It is seen that the relief granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited on the side of the petitioner is different, from the relief sought for by the petitioner herein, considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not in the same footing as that of the co- accused/A4 and further when a criminal case is pending, the accused is not entitled to seek an order to return jewels or cash relating to a pending criminal case to his custody, as the proper custodian would be the Court. It is also an admitted fact that ordering return of the jewels to the accused in a pending case would create complication, in case if the jewels are sold or mortgaged or replaced by fake jewel by any accused. On the other hand if the jewels are in the Court custody even if the case is decided in favour of the petitioner / accused, it would not cause any prejudice to the said accused. 7.However the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised his apprehension that without providing opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent may return the jewels to any other person or sell the same and ultimately it would affect the right of the petitioner. 8.Considering the aforesaid representation of the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent herein as well as the Court below are directed not to return the jewels or sell the same without issuing notice and providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and following the procedure known to law. 9.With the above observation, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Inspector of Police,Economic Offence Wing No.2,Madurai. 2.The Special Judge, T.N.P.I.D. Court, Madurai +1CC to Mr.S.Maheswaran, Advocate. SR.No.42575. RP/21.12.2011/2P/4C. Crl.R.C(MD)No.886 of 2011,01.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/