Marimuthu v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE : 08.01.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI Marimuthu .. Petitioner / Owner of the vehicle Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, 2.The Tahsildar, 3.The Assistant Director, Mines and Mineral Development Foundation, 4.The State, Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.368/2019) .. Respondents / Respondents Prayer : This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, in Cr.M.P.No.4251 of 2019, dated 22.01.2020 and modify the condition in Condition Nos.2 and 5. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar For Respondents : Mr.Bharathi Kannan Government Advocate

ORDER

This revision has been filed to call for the records and to modify the condition Nos.2 and 5 of the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, in Cr.M.P.No.4251 of 2019, dated 22.01.2020 and to allow the Criminal Revision Petition. 2.The vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-65-AH-6435 was seized by the respondent police in Crime No.368 of 2019. The petitioner, claiming himself as the owner of the vehicle, filed a petition before the Special Court, Ramanathapuram, for return of the 1 / 3

vehicle in Crl.M.P.No.4251 of 2019. That petition was allowed by the Special Court on certain conditions. The petitioner filed this Revision against the condition Nos.2 and 5.

3.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the vehicle was purchased through financial company and the original R.C.book is in the custody of the Financial Company and therefore, the petitioner could not submit the R.C. book. Moreover, due to COVID-19 situation, the petitioner is not in a position to mobilise the fund of Rs.50,000/- for depositing the same to the credit of District Minerals Foundation Trust, Ramanathapuram and prayed, both the conditions to be cancelled and condition No.2 to be modified. 4.On the side of the respondents, it is stated that both the conditions are reasonable conditions and there is no reason sufficient enough to entertain the petition.

5.It is seen that the trial Court has directed the petitioner only to deposit Rs.50,000/- and to produce the R.C. book. Both are reasonable conditions. In view of the same, there is nothing sufficient enough to interefere in the order of the trial Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (crl side) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Ls NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To 1.The Principal Sessions Judge, 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, 3.The Tahsildar, 2 / 3

4.The Assistant Director, Mines and Mineral Development Foundation, 5.The Inspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

08.01.2021 VB (22.01.2021) 3P 7C 3 / 3