M G SINGARAVELU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records relating to the order dated 18.6.2003 made in Crl.M.P.No.1987 of 2003 in C.C.No.1613 of 1992 by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to pay compensation.

(2.) On perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate on the criminal side, it comes to be known that the petitioner was the first accused in the case registered by the respondents in C.C.No.1613 of 1992 before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur for the offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC, Sections 21(d),(e)(f) and Section 36(A) and (E) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and r/w.Rule 3(1) of the Sandalwood Possession Rules; that during investigation, the respondents seized and produced 48 sandalwood items before the Court as case property, which were in turn entrusted to the second respondent by the Court for safe custody; that after full trial, the said criminal case ended in acquittal by the judgment of the trial Court dated 28.9.2001, but since the trial Court has ordered confiscation of the said case property, the petitioner herein has preferred a Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2001 before the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore and the said Court, by its judgment dated 24.4.2003, has allowed the appeal setting aside the order of confiscation passed by the trial Court further ordering return of the properties, seized and produced before the trial Court, to the petitioner herein and since the respondents have not preferred any revision against the judgment of the appellate Court, the said order has become final.

(3.) It further comes to be known that thereafter, the petitioner has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1987 of 2003 under Section 452 Cr.P.C. before the Court below praying return of the properties to him wherein the second respondent has filed a reply stating that the properties concerned in the case have been destroyed by an accidental fire and hence the Court below, by its order dated 18.6.2003 had closed the said petition seeking return of property in its one sentence order. It is only aggrieved against the said order passed by the Court below, the petitioner has come forward to file the above criminal original petition on grounds such as that (i)the court below should have directed the respondents to pay compensation on the basis of the entrustment order made in C.P.No.1516 of 1992 by the Court below; (ii) that the court below has failed to note that the case properties were entrusted to the second respondent for safe custody and there is no occasion for him to store the same in the Additional Sandalwood Godown at Tirupattur and lost it in the fire accident; (iii) that the Court below has failed to note that the petitioner, being a licence holder to hold sandalwood as held by the lower appellate Court, is entitled for return of the same or compensation and non-awarding of the compensation amount is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice.