R. BADRINARAYANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . C. Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for the respondent. By consent, the revision is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No. 133 of 2015 registered by the respondent for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code and the offence was said to have been committed on 15.03.2015. A perusal of the First Information Report would disclose that the petitioner/de facto complainant is carrying on business of Commission Agent with regard to the sale of beedi and cigarette and his car driver, namely Karuppiah is also engaged in collecting the amount from the customers of the petitioner/de facto complainant. On 14.03.2015, Karuppiah along with one Muthukrishnan were deputed to collect the amount from the customers and they have collected a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/ - and were returning and on the early morning hours on 15.03.2015, one of the tyres of the car got punctured and when it was replaced, two persons came, sprayed chilli power and took the money. Subsequently, the accused were arrested and major portion of the stolen money has also been recovered.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that it is not in serious dispute that the cash of Rs. 23,50,000/ - recovered from the accused belongs to the revision petitioner and since it is used for business purposes, the petitioner is in urgent requirement of the said money and there cannot be any impediment in ordering the return of the cash by way of interim custody subject to the conditions.