SASIKUMAR Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in all these revisions is one and the same person. All these revisions have arisen out of a common order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai in Crl.M.P. Nos.1262 of 2015, 972 of 2015 and 1305 of 2015. Since common issues are involved, all these revisions were heard together and disposed of by means of this common order.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief would be as follows:

(3.) THERE is no dispute that a sum of Rs. 90,000/ - was recovered from the petitioner and Rs. 60,000/ - was recovered from Saravanan and Rs. 18,44,650/ - was recovered from the 7th accused. Now, there is a dispute as to whom the money belongs to. As per the settled law, if the learned Judicial Magistrate is not in a position to decide as to whom the money belongs to, the Magistrate is bound to keep the money in safe custody of the Court till the disposal of the case and to make a final adjudication under Section 452 Cr.P.C. later. But in this case, the learned Judicial Magistrate has followed a curious procedure by recording the statement on oath from the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner calls it as sworn statement of the partners. I do not understand as to how and under what authority, the learned Judicial Magistrate has recorded such a statement. It is a common knowledge that such a statement may be recorded from a complainant under Section 200 and a witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C., or from the witness under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the purpose of deciding the issue under Section 451 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate has got no power or authority at all to record such a statement, on oath, from the parties. It is needless to point out that to hold summary enquiry, the Magistrate can permit the parties to lead evidence, which means examining the parties on oath, and permitting the parties to file documents. But, the learned Judicial Magistrate, has followed a strange procedure in simply recording the statement of the parties, on oath, though this procedure is illegal. Therefore, the common order based on the same deserves to be interfered with. Not only on the above stated ground, the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have dismissed all these petitions on several other grounds as dealt with infra.