PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Suo motu revision has been initiated by this Court based on the report received from the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore after inspecting the Assistant Sessions Court, Panruti for the purpose of deciding the question whether the case in S. C. No. 159 of 1992 for the major offence under section 4 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 can be proceeded further by the said Assistant Sessions Judge.

(2.) A case in S. C. No. 159 of 1992 filed under Section 4 (1-A) read with Sections 4 (1) (b), 4 (1) (i), 5, 7 and 12 of the Tamil Nadu prohibition Act, 1937 is pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, panruti ever since 21. 4. 1992.

(3.) IT is found that the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti had addressed the Investigating Officer concerned right from 1994 to consign the case properties recovered in this serious matter for the purpose of progressing the trial of the case. But, it is disturbing to note that the prosecuting Agency has taken about 15 long years to entrust the properties to the custody of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti. IT is reported that the properties were entrusted to the custody of the Assistant Sessions Judge only on 28. 09. 2005.