S. VEERAKUMAR Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above Criminal Revision Petition challenging the order dated 06.2.2015 passed by the Court below in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for return of property, namely, TVS Scooty Pep Plus bearing Registration No. TN 09 BT 5182.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, on 03.11.2012, when the third respondent / de facto complainant left her job and returned back to her home, she found that her house was break open and jewels and cash were stolen. Therefore, based on the complaint given by her, a case was registered in Cr.No. 3770/2012 and after investigation, second respondent was arrested and based on the confession statement given by him that he had purchased the vehicle in question in and out of the sale proceeds of the crime in Cr. No. 3770/2012, the vehicle was seized. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has mechanically passed the order stating that the ownership of the vehicle in question can only be determined during the trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the trial is not in connection with the ownership of the vehicle and it is only to find out as to whether the accused have committed the offence as charged. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question as seen in the endorsement in the RC Book and the Court below, without considering the same, has dismissed the petition. In any event, after seizure, the vehicle is parked in the police station in the open place and it is exposed to sun, rain and dust. If the custody of the vehicle is not handed over to the petitioner, the value of the vehicle will be diminished. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed this Court to allow this Criminal Revision Petition.