N.Neduncheliyan @ Puthur Kadu Pandi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Sub Inspector Of Police, Singampunari

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI N.Neduncheliyan @ Puthur Kadu Pandi ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. By the Sub Inspector of Police, Singampunari Police Station, Sivagangai District.

Crime No.16 of 2026 ... Respondent PRAYER : Revision filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records in pertaining to the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari dt. 01.04.2026 made in Crl.M.P. NO. 91 of 2026 and set aside the same as illegal and return the OPPO A3 Pro 5G Light purple (IMEI-8650770078731772) Mobile Phoe seized by the respondent police in connection with Crime No.16 of 2026.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Anandraj For Respondent : Mr.C.Susikumar Government Advocate 1/6

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari dated 01.04.2026 made in Crl.M.P. No.91 of 2026 and return the mobile phone namely, OPPO A3 Pro 5G Light Purple (IMEI-8650770078731772) seized by the respondent police in connection with the case in Crime No.16 of 2026.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a qualified practitioner of Siddha medicine. It was further contended that, under the guise of eradicating quackery, the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No. 16 of 2026 against the petitioner. During the course of the investigation, the respondent police seized the petitioner's mobile phone as well as various Siddha medicinal oils from his possession. In this regard, the petitioner had preferred an application before the trial Court under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS for return of the seized properties. It is submitted that the learned trial Court, without proper application of mind and without appreciating the materials placed before it, dismissed the said application. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order, seeks interference of this Court.

2/6

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submitted that Form No. 91, along with the list of all properties seized in connection with the case, had already been submitted before the trial Court on 19.01.2026. He further fairly submitted that the petitioner's mobile phone is not required for the purpose of investigation and is not a material object relevant to the case. Therefore, he has no serious objection to the return of the mobile phone to the petitioner, subject to appropriate conditions. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be modified to that extent.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

5. It is needless to state that the criminal case registered against the petitioner appears to have arisen against alleged quackery. According to the petitioner, he is a Siddha medical practitioner and various Siddha medicines and oils used in his practice were seized by the respondent police during the course of investigation. Apart from the said articles, the respondent police had also seized the petitioner's mobile phone, which is an important personal property of the petitioner.

3/6

6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Judge, without properly adverting to the necessity for the continued retention of the petitioner's mobile phone, dismissed the petition filed under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS. In the considered view of this Court, the learned trial Judge failed to examine whether the mobile phone was required for any further investigation or evidentiary purpose. Therefore, this Court finds some force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari, in Crl.M.P. No. 91 of 2026 is set aside insofar as it relates to the petitioner's request for return of the mobile phone. Consequently, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari is directed to return the mobile phone namely, OPPO A3 Pro 5G Light Purple (IMEI-8650770078731772) alone.

10.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Sm 4/6

TO:-

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Singampunari Police Station, Sivagangai District.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari.

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

5/6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sm Order made in Dated 10.06.2026 6/6