Madras High Court
Marudhachalam vs State on 20 January, 2016
Author: A.Selvam
Bench: A.Selvam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-01-2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM Criminal Revision Case No.568 of 2014 --- Marudhachalam .. Petitioner Vs. State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Anticorruption Police Station Coimbatore District (Crime No.18 of 2013) .. Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Section 397 read with 401, Cr.P.C., to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.401 of 2013 dated 09-04-2014 on the file of the Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore District for release of the jewels under the custody of the TUCAS and Karur Vysya Bank from the seized locker No.II in Crime No.18 of 2013 on the file of the respondent to the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.Abrar Md. Abdullah For respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan, Addl.Public Prosecutor ORDER
This criminal revision case has been directed against the order dated 09-04-2014 passed in Crl.M.P.No.401 of 2013 in Spl.C.C.No.40 of 2011 by the Special Judge, Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore.
2. The revision petitioner as petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.401 of 2013 in Spl.C.C.No.40 of 2011 under Section 451, Cr.P.C., praying to de-freeze the lockers mentioned therein and also permit him to operate the same.
3. The Court-below after considering the rival contentions put forth on either side has allowed the petition in part and thereby defreezed the locker available in Karur Vysya Bank and permitted the petitioner to operate the same, but, dismissed the petition in respect of the locker in TUCAS Bank, Coimbatore. Against the disallowed portion, the present criminal revision case has been filed at the instance of the petitioner, as revision petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has repeatedly contended that prior to conduct of search and seizure of the properties found in the locker kept in TUCAS Bank, Coimbatore, no proper permission has been obtained from the concerned Magistrate and even after seizure, the same has not been immediately reported to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Under the said circumstances, the entire search as well as seizure alleged to have been conducted by the respondents are erroneous and the Trial Court has failed to consider the same and therefore, the revision filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed in toto.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that before conducting search, necessary permission has been obtained and subsequently, seizure has been reported to the concerned Magistrate and there is no lapse on the part of the respondent and further, the Court-below has given valid reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner with regard to the locker which is under the custody of TUCAS Bank and therefore, the order passed by the Court-below need not be set aside.
6. For considering the rival submissions, the Court has to look into the provision of Section 102(3), Cr.P.C. and the same reads as follows:
"Every police officer acting under sub- section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction..."
A mere reading of the said provision would go to show that immediately after seizure, the same should be reported to the concerned Magistrate.
7. In fact on the side of the respondent a typed set has been submitted wherein it is found that before conducting search, necessary permission has been sought from the Concerned Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate has also given necessary permission. Further, it is seen from the typed set that seizure has been reported on 24-10-2002. Further, it is seen from the typed set that seizure has been conducted on 23-10-2002. Next day, the same has been reported to the concerned Magistrate. Therefore, it is quite clear that there is no lapse on the part of the respondent.
8. Further, the Court-below in its order has observed as follows:
"But the original house search list pertaining to petitioner's Locker No.2 at TUCAS Bank, Thudiyalur Branch, Coimbatore was sent only to the concerned Krishnagiri Court and only its carbon copy is before this court and so whether freezing of the said locker and seizing of jewels were reported by the vigilance police to the said Krishnagiri court immediately after freezing of locker or not cannot be ascertained in this petition and further more if the said 357.800 grams of gold jewels in TUCAS Bank locker is returned to the petitioner by defreezing the locker means petitioner will be in custody of an excess 173.8 grams of gold jewels for which he is not entitled and at this juncture this court determines that the said excess 173.8 grams of gold jewels are likely to be the property of petitioner's co-brother Sargurumahadevan and so those jewels are very important material objects in Dharmapuri V & AC Police Station Cr.No.14/2002/AC/DP case and so only through all the three searches were made in Dharmapuri V & AC Police Station Cr.No.14/2002/AC/DP only the original house search list pertaining to petitioner's Locker No.2 at TUCAS Bank, Thudiyalur Branch, Coimbatore alone was sent to concerned Krishnagiri court and so, only the concerned Krishnagiri court is the competent court to pass orders defreezing Locker No.2 of petitioner at TUCAS Bank, Thudiyalur Branch, Coimbatore and so when petitioners balance 184 grams of gold jewels alone cannot be separated from 357.800 grams of jewels inside Locker No.2 at TUCAS Bank, Coimbatore petitioner is not entitled for an order of this court defreezing his Locker No.2 at TUCAS Bank, Thudiyalur Branch, Coimbatore and to get custody of jewels inside the said locker."
Even on a cursory look of the observations made by the Court-below, it is easily discernible that the Court-below has given sufficient reason for rejecting the claim of the revision petitioner/petitioner in respect of the locker which is available in TUCAS Bank. Further, as stated earlier there is no deviation on the part of the respondent in getting permission for conducting search and also reporting the same to the concerned Magistrate. Under the said circumstances. the order passed by the Court-below need not be set aside.
In fine, the criminal revision case is dismissed. The order passed in Crl.M.P.No.401 of 2013 dated 09-04-2014 is confirmed.
20-01-2016 Internet:Yes/No glp To Inspector of Police, Vigilance Anticorruption Police Station Coimbatore District A.SELVAM, J.
glp Criminal Revision Case No.568 of 2014 20-01-2016