BALAMURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner/A-2 has focussed the instant Criminal Revision Case as against the impugned order dated 21.11.2015 in Cr.MP.No.6160 of 2015, (filed by the Revision petitioner/A2), passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, in dismissing the miscellaneous petition. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, while passing the impugned order, in Cr.M.P.No.6160 of 2015, dated 21.11.2015, (filed by the Revision Petitioner/A-2 had categorically observed that the two wheeler TN 49 BZ 7746 (Splendor-Pro) was not produced before the trial Court and inasmuch as the Additional Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, was to take confiscation proceedings (in favour of the State) and as such, the same could not be produced before the Court and resultantly, dismissed the petition for return of property filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) Challenging the validity and legality of the impugned order dated 21.11.2015, in Cr.M.P.No.6160 of 2015, the Revision Petitioner has projected the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court mainly contending that the initiation of confiscation proceedings is not a bar to invoke Section 451 r/w 457 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the trial Court had failed to appreciate that since the case was initiated only on preliminary stage, the petitioner was ready to abide by any condition with regard to the production of his two wheeler as and when required.