Madras High Court
K.Ramachandran ...Revision vs State By on 23 February, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on :30.07.2018
Orders Pronounced on:20.09.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.R.C.No.551 of 2018
K.Ramachandran ...Revision Petitioner/Owner of the movie
Vs.
1.State by
Inspector of Police,
EOW-II, Vellore,
(Crime No.3 of 2015) ...Respondent/Complainant
2.A.P.Shanmuga Nathan ...Respondent/accused
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the learned Special Judge for TNPID cases, Chennai and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1485 of 2017 dated 23.02.2018.
***
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu
For R1 : Mrs.V.Saratha Devi Government Advocate (crl.side)
For R2 :Mr.P.Vishnu
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1485 of 2017 dated 23.02.2018 on the file of learned Special Judge for TNPID cases, Chennai.
2. The unsuccessful petitioner who is a third party is the revision petitioner herein.
3. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C to return hard disk of the film Kuruvikulam@Valarpu Magan and also SFL Media Kuruvikulam, SFL(2TB) Valarpu Magan SN-NA 5 KC pending investigation in Crime No.3 of 2015 on the file of the respondent.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
i) The petitioner is the owner and producer of 'Jumboo Maharishi Cine Art' and his Company was registered on 27.08.2015 in Register No.15824 before Film and Television Producers Guild of South India situated at T.Nagar, Chennai. The 2nd respondent Shanmuga Nathan has entered into a sale agreement with the petitioner on 6.4.2016 with regard to the film Kuruvikulam @ Valarpu Magan for a sale consideration of Rs.51,00,000/- and in fact, he has stated that he will not claim any rights over the property and has cleared all the dues to the actors and technicians and during the shooting of the film, there was no case pending and if there is any problem, he will clear it. The 2nd respondent suppressed that he was arrested in Crime No.3 of 2015 by the respondent police.
ii) To his shock and surprise one Inspector by name VB.Senthilkumar attached to the respondent police came to AM Studio, Chennai and after enquiry of one editor Thangaraj of Global Dream Studio, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai, seized the articles (i) SFL Media Kuruvikulam/Valarpu Magan Qube Hard Disk, SN-NATHHOWI (3TP) with cable; (ii) SFL Media Kuruvikulam SFL (2tb) A.K.A.Valarpu Magan, SN-NA 5KCX2H.
iii) With great difficulty, the petitioner completed the film and hard disk was prepared in respect of the above film. The petitioner undertakes to keep it safe and he will not misuse the hard disk of the film and Apex Court already held that the properties seized must be handed over to the respective claimants without any delay. The said film was five years old and he had to release the film and further he will undertake to give first copy of the film before this Court. Hence, the petitioner prays to return the articles.
5. The said petition was opposed by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State on the ground that on the complaint of one R.Gnanakumar of Vallipattu Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District, a case was registered in Vellore EOW Crime No.3 of 2015 under Section 420 I.P.C read with 5 of TNPID Act. So far, 117 witnesses have been examined and the properties of the accused are identified, to send a proposal to the Government for attaching the properties of the accused. On 26.05.2015, the accused A.P.Shanmuganathan was arrested. In his confession statement, he has clearly stated that he produced a film in the name of 'Kuruvikulam' and he has also admitted that the entire expenditure was incurred in the name of SFL Agro Ltd., and he has received Rs.1,50,00,000/- from 117 depositors. The petitioner is a retired Village Administrative Officer and he has stated that he has given a loan amount of Rs.51 lakhs on different occasions to the accused and the dates of the loan amount was not mentioned in the sale deed document. As a retired Government Servant, i.e., V.A.O, the petitioner has to disclose the source of Rs.51,00,000/- either to the Income Tax Department or to his department, but the petitioner has not fulfilled the above said declaration. Further, the said document was executed in between the accused and the petitioner on 6.11.2016. Prior to this, in the confession of the accused, he has stated that he had incurred all the production cost for taking the movie 'Kuruvikulam' from the depositors amount. It is clearly indicated that the petitioner created the said document without mentioning the dates of transaction with the accused. Since the transactions seem to be a bogus one hence, it is strongly objected to return the said seized property to the petitioner. In short, the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted in the absence of any financial sources and as per the confession statement of the accused, the accused has incurred all the production cost for taking the alleged movie from the depositors amount and hence, prayed for rejection.
6. The accused, who is arrayed as second respondent in this petition before us through counsel, has submitted he has no objection.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the sole owner and purchaser of the movie and having the office at T.Nagar. The petitioner has purchased the film from the second respondent-accused and he is a bonafide purchaser of the hard disk of the said film and the same was seized by the first respondent-police and it is in their custody and seeks for return of the property.
8. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) based upon the counter filed before the trial Court would submit that the second respondent herein is an accused in Crime Number 3 of 2015 for alleged offence under Section 420 of I.P.C and Section 5 of the TNPID Act and as per his confession statement, the entire expenses were incurred from the deposits collected from 117 depositors, which is a subject matter before the Special Court under TNPID Act,Chennai and strongly opposed by the grant of the interim relief.
9. Heard both sides and perused the records.
10. It is seen that the records have been produced before this Court along with part of the C.D file relating to the transaction said to have been involved in connection with the property in question. It appears that the second respondent is the accused in Crime Number 3 of 2015 and was arrested on 26.05.2015 for the alleged offence under Section 420 read with 5 of the TNPID Act and by orders of the Court, he was enlarged on bail on 24.07.2015.
11. It appears from the records that during the course of the investigation, the accused A.P.Shanmughanathan is said to have given on confession for shoot of the film in the name of 'Kuruvikulam' and the statement has been mainly relied upon by the Government Advocate.
12. The learned Government Advocate has produced the xerox copy of the said statement given by A.P.Shanmughanathan, aged about 44, to the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, Vellore District, which was signed on 24.08.2017. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the last 4 lines in the said confession statement read as follows:-
"gpwF ehd; ,J Fwpj;J bghUshjhu Fw;wg;gphpt[. ntYhh; mth;fsplk; jfty; bfhLf;f mth; nkw;go jpiug;glkhdJ kf;fsplkpUe;J bgwg;gl;l KjyPL gzj;jpypUe;J bgwg;gl;l glkhdJ vd;gjdhy; mjw;Fhpa ,uz;L Hard Disk fisa[k; kf$h; K:yk; 01/09/2017e; njjp ifg;gw;wp brd;id TNPID nfhh;l; rkh;g;gpj;Js;shh; vd;gJ vdf;F bjhpa[k;/ ,J rk;ge;jkhf nkw;Twpa Mtz';fspd; efy;fis j';fsplk; rkh;g;gpj;Js;nsd;".
13. Laying emphasis on the submission of the Government Advocate, she has submitted that as per the confession statement of the sole accused A.P.shanmughanathan, he is only a purchaser of the film and for the production of the film, the cash received from the depositors is said to have been used. After re-reading the above statement, I find that the confession statement, which is extracted above goes to the extent that since the movie has been produced from and out of the fund and money collected from the general public, the two hard disks have been seized under the Magazar dated 01.09.2017 and deposited before the TNPID Court.
14. Unfortunately, when the said statement was said to have been signed by the accused A.P.Shanmughanathan on 24.08.2017, this Court is unable to accept as to how in a statement said to have been recorded on 24.08.2017, the alleged factum of seizure of two hard disks, which is the subject matter of this petition said to have been seized on 1.9.2017 (future date), has found a place, whereby it raises a very serious doubt as to the very nature of the alleged confession statement. The sheet anchor for the State for opposing this petition came into existence in short and all is not well with the alleged confession statement projected by the prosecution, which is said to have been recorded and signed on 24.08.2017 and hence, I find that the documents that are now produced before this Court are not genuine, and the same have been fabricated in a hasty manner as shown in a seizure Mahazar dated 01.09.2017 as though found a place in the confession statement dated 24.08.2017. Since the seizure itself is said to be in the cloud and also taking note of the serious irregularities in projecting the document as if it is a confession statement given by the A.P.Shanmughanathan, I am of the considered view that the objection of the State is not on legal grounds.
15. Accordingly, the prayer in the petition is allowed, subject to the condition that the first copy of the film is to be deposited before the TNPID Court and the original C.Ds as mentioned in the petition are directed to be returned to the special Court, which is hereby directed to return the hard disk as mentioned in the petition after obtaining necessary undertaking that is required under law.
16. With these observations, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1485 of 2017, dated.23.02.2018 shall stand set aside.
20.09.2018 nvi To The Special Court for TNPID cases, Chennai RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J., nvi order in Crl.R.C.No.551 of 2018 20.09.2018