AMIT JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Revision Cases arise out of the common order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, Coimbatore in CMP Nos.4267 and 4268 of 2018, dated 4.1.2019, in and by which, the relief sought for by the petitioner to return the petitions scheduled properties, came to be rejected.

(2.) Before the above said order dated 4.1.2019, similar Crl.Miscellaneous Petitions were filed before the Court below by the revision petitioner herein and the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petitions for return of the properties on 22.10.2018 on the ground that there was strong objection from the prosecution and the investigation was also pending. Against the said order, Criminal Revision Cases were filed in Crl.R.C.Nos.1302 and 1303 of 2018 before this Court. This Court by seperate orders, dated 5.12.2018, rejected the Revision Cases on the ground that there was no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he has got valid licence to run the business of Pan masala products since 2011 and therefore, in the event of rejecting the petitions for return of properties, the petitioner would suffer exemplary loss and much hardship, which cannot be compensated. The learned counsel would also submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the trial Court should deal with the cases pertaining to the return of the properties expeditiously and promptly in order to avoid loss of value and decaying of perishable goods by efflux of time. The learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to a decision reported in "2003(1) CTC 175 (SC) (Sunderbhai Ambalai Desi versus State of Gujarat)". He would specifically draw reference to paragraphs 7 to 11, 14 and also 19 to 21, which are extracted herein below: