LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-289

NANDAKUMAR Vs. STATE AND ORS.

Decided On March 24, 2015
NANDAKUMAR Appellant
V/S
State And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by a portion of the judgment in C.C. No. 384 of 2013 dated 09.09.2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udumalaipet, treating the Crime property of Rs. 90,000/-, recovered from the accused, as Government property, the de facto complainant has filed the present revision case. Material on record discloses that on the report of the de facto complainant, a case in Cr. No. 395 of 2013, was registered against one Sundarraj @ Rasukutti of Virudhunagar District. It is the case of the de facto complainant that a sum of Rs. 97,000/- was stolen from his Finance Company. Case registered in Cr. No. 395 of 2013, has culminated into C.C. No. 384 of 2013, under Sections 454 and 380 I.P.C. Before the trial Court, eleven witnesses have been examined. Nine documents have been marked. One Material Object has been marked.

(2.) Upon considering the evidence, submission of the prosecution and the accused, vide judgment dated 09.09.2014, in C.C. No. 384 of 2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udumalaipet, has acquitted the accused. The de facto complainant has no grievance over the acquittal. However, he is aggrieved over the conclusion of the learned Judicial Magistrate, that the Government would be the owner of the Crime property viz., the remaining cash of Rs. 90,000/-, deposited to the credit of C.C. No. 384 of 2013.

(3.) Assailing the correctness of the said portion of the judgment, Mr. N. Ponraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the accused in his confessional statement dated 17.08.2013, has admitted that he had stolen a sum of Rs. 97,000/- from Adhilakshmi Finance Company and after spending a sum of Rs. 7,000/-, kept the balance amount of Rs. 90,000/- at his house, at Coimbatore and thereafter when the police had recovered Rs. 90,000/- from his residence, the Court below, after the conclusion of the trial, ought to have returned the cash to the petitioner, the de facto complainant and the owner of the Adhilakshmi Finance Company.