KIRUBANIDHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises against the order of the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No. 1216 of 2010 dated 11.10.2010.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the premises in which goods comprising of food packets, biscuits, chocolates, cosmetic items etc. were stored and in respect of which a case stands registered by the first respondent in Crime No. 380 of 2010 for offence under sections 273, 420 IPC r/w section 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The tenant of the petitioner is the accused in such case. While causing arrest of such tenant/accused, the first respondent seized the offending materials by locking and sealing the rented portion of the property. The representation of the petitioner made to the first respondent on 15.06.2006 to hand over the vacant possession by removing the materials went unheeded. The petitioner also informed that Form-95 was submitted before the Court below by the first respondent and a request was made to inspect the property on 10.06.2010 pursuant to which the learned Magistrate passed an order directing the 'B' property clerk to inspect the godown and report. The 'B' property clerk inspected the godown on 15.07.2010, sealed the premises and hand over the keys to the Magistrate on the same day. The petitioner moved W.P.No. 13746 of 2010 seeking a direction to the first respondent to remove the 3 seal that had been put on his premises and restore possession of the same after removal of the materials that had been confiscated in connection with Crime No. 380 of 2010. The petitioner informed that under orders dated 19.07.2010, such Writ Petition was closed with a direction to work out his remedies before the Magistrate. Informing the above, the petitioner has moved Crl.M.P.No. 1216 of 2010 seeking a direction for production of seized materials before the Court and handing over vacant possession and key to the petitioner. Such petition was dismissed by the order under challenge.

(3.) The Court below observed that the petitioner may collect rents for the property from his tenant and though it had ample powers to deal with case property u/s.451 Cr.P.C., the present was a peculiar case where the property was expired goods and injurious to human beings and therefore, the same could not be given to anybody for interim custody by invoking the provision u/s.451 Cr.P.C. Holding that it was necessary to keep the case property for safe custody, the petition was dismissed.