ARUNPANDI Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the Petitions filed to seek the Interim Custody of the Vehicle involved in the illegal transportation of the mines. After hearing the arguments of the Counsel, the case was reserved for orders. On the date of the argument, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) placed reliance on the Order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramar v. State, Crl.R.C.(MD) No.470 of 2023, dtd. 11/10/2023. Now, the another learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.O.P. Nos.646 of 2024, etc., dtd. 29/1/2024 has held as follows:

(2.) In view of the above decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Special Court constituted for speedy trial of the case, which was committed by the Judicial Magistrate concerned and the Special Court cannot directly take cognizance of the offences in Complaint under MMDR Act without an order of committal by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. It is also held that the Judicial Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of case under MMDR Act and to pass Order under Sec. 451, Cr.P.C. until Committal Order passed. Therefore, the impugned Orders passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge in each cases lacks of cognizance to entertain Petition under Sec. 451 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned Order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in Crl.M.P. Nos.4312, 4697, 4471, 4357, 4801, 4698, 5325, 4630 of 2023 and to allow these Criminal Revisions with the following directions: