Madras High CourtCRL RC(MD)/504/2020allowed

Senthil Kumar v. District Collector

2020-09-14Honourable Mrs Justice R. Tharani3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE : 14.09.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State rep. by The District Collector, 2.State rep. by The Revenue Divisional Officer, 3.State rep. by The Tahsildar, Pugalar Taluk office, 4.State rep.by The Assistant Director of Mines and Minerals Development, ... Respondents Prayer : This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.883 of 2020 on the file of the District Sessions Judge, Karur and to set aside the condition imposed in serial no(i), dated 13.08.2020 with regard to the deposit of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Pragadeesh Kumar For Respondents :

Mrs.Anandha Devi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This revision has been filed to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.883 of 2020 on the file of the District Sessions Judge, Karur and to set aside the condition imposed in serial No.(i), dated 13.08.2020, with regard to the deposit of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.

1 / 3

2. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the trial Court passed an order for return of vehicle, with certain conditions and the first condition imposed by the trial Court is that the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in the court. It is further stated that due to COVID- 19 pandemic situation, the petitioner is not able to deposit that amount and hence, prayed the condition to be modified.

3. On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that the vehicle was used for transporting sand and the vehicle is a Multi Axle Goods carrier and objected to the modification of the order.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. There is no question regarding the ownership of the vehicle. The only point to be decided is whether the condition No.1 imposed by the trial Judge is to be modified. On the basis of the representation made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to modify the first condition to the effect that the petitioner has to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-

6. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. The order passed by the District Sessions Judge, Karur, Crl.M.P.No.883 of 2020, dated 13.08.2020, is set aside in respect of the 1st condition alone is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in the District Sessions Judge, Karur. In respect of other conditions, the order of the learned Sessions Judge shall remain unaltered. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // / /2020 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 District Sessions Judge, 2 / 3

2.The District Collector, 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, 4.The Tahsildar, Pugalar Taluk office, Karur.

5. The Assistant Director of Mines and Minerals Development, 6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

14.09.2020 AP(17/09/2020) 3 P 7C 3 / 3