Madras High Court
Thangaleela vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 30 March, 2015
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.03.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN. Crl.R.C(MD)No.521 of 2014 Thangaleela ... Petitioner Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, The Economic Offences Wing-II, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil ... Respondent Civil Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.2513 of 2013 in C.C.Nos.23 to 35 of 2010, on the file of the Special Court for TNPID Cases, Madurai and set aside the same and direct the Special Court for TNPID cases to return the jewels of the petitioner, which is being in the custody of the Special Court for TNPID Cases, Madurai as Serial No.195 in the list of properties in R.P.R.No.11/2013. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Angusamy For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh, APP. :ORDER
This revision has been filed against against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2513 of 2013 in C.C.Nos.23 to 35 of 2010, dated 08.05.2014, by the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Madurai and consequently, direct the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases to return the jewels of the petitioner, which is being in the custody of the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Madurai, as Serial No.195 in the list of properties in R.P.R.No.11/2013.
2. By consent, the Revision itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner has pledged her jewels viz., 1 No. of Bangle and 4 Rings, weighing 2.800 gms with SUS Bankers and got a loan of Rs.1000/-. There was serious allegation against the said Bankers as well as per the person incharge of the said Concern, which resulted in registration of the case in Crime Nos.8 & 9 of 2005, by the Economic Offences Wing-II, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil and the said cases, after culmination of investigation, had resulted in final report, which had been taken on file in C.C.Nos.23 to 35 of 2010, on the file of Special Court under TNPID Act Cases, Madurai. The petitioner filed a Crl.M.P.No. 2513 of 2013, under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., for return of the said jewels by way of interim custody and it was opposed by the respondent by stating that the details such as, the amount payable by the petitioner can be furnished only by the accused and that the petitioner is not even cited as witness in this case and in the event of return of the jewels, it may be extremely difficult to get back the jewels after disposal and hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.
4. The lower Court has taken into consideration the objection, and found that the due date of loan was on 29.06.2005 and the petitioner did not pay the interest and also not calculated the rate of interest to redeem the jewels and without hearing the accused, such an order cannot be passed and citing the said reason, has dismissed the petition, vide the impugned order dated 08.05.2014 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced a memo, dated 25.03.2015 and would submit that as per the said memo, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.1,067/- towards the loan and without prejudice to her rights and contention, she is ready and willing to deposit the sum of Rs.2000/- to the credit of C.C.No.23 of 2010, pending on the file of trial Court.
6. Per contra, Mr.C.Ramesh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the amount due and payable by the petitioner is within the knowledge of the concerned accused and the accused has not been arrayed as a party to the proceedings and taking into consideration the said aspect, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition and prays for dismissal of the revision.
7. This Court, after hearing the rival submissions and upon perusal of the materials placed before it, is of the view that the revision is to be allowed for the following reasons:-
8. It is not in dispute that the jewels pledged by the petitioner are capable of identification and in fact, the seizure mahazar would also indicate that the jewel loan on account of the petitioner was due on 29.06.2005 and she has pledged 1 bangle and 4 rings weighing about 2.800 gms and since the jewels are capable of identification and further, the petitioner is also willing to deposit a sum of Rs.2000/- without prejudice to her rights and contention, the said jewels can be ordered to be returned to her by way of interim custody, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) with one surety each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge under TNPID Act Cases, Madurai.
(ii) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2000/-, (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to the credit of C.C.No.23 of 2010 on or before 22.04.2015.
9. On compliance of the condition Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court is directed to return the jewels pledged by the petitioner by way of interim custody and the petitioner, on getting interim custody of the jewels, shall not sell or pledge and shall produce the same before the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Madurai, as and when required.
30.03.2015 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MPK To
1.The Special Court for TNPID Cases, Madurai
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, The Economic Offences Wing-II, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
MPK Crl.R.C(MD)No.521 of 2014 30.03.2015