Criminal Court Lacks Jurisdiction: High Court Directs Parties to moves Civil Court for Ownership Claims Over Seized Oil

118
0
Share:
jurisdiction Assault v properties Policy Property Evidence Natural Dowry Railway evidence Face 19Certificate Driving Principles Domestidisciplinary c YouTube Video Violence Stamp Duty Bail vehicle vehicleinterest Crime Eyewitness divorcee Passport Police

In a notable decision, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition filed by Menaka, directing the parties to establish their claims over seized oil in a civil court. The order came in the context of conflicting ownership claims over a large quantity of oil seized from the petitioner’s factory, with the petitioner and the second respondent, Sri Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited, asserting different narratives about its nature and use.

Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan observed, “if there is any rival claim relating to the seized goods, the criminal Court has no jurisdiction to determine the rival claim and the same is to be decided in the civil Court.” This directive follows the principles laid out in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Suryanarayanan (2020 12 SCC 637).

The revision petition, Crl.R.C(MD). No.945 of 2023, sought to overturn a decision of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul, which had returned the docket on a petition for interim custody of the seized oil. The petitioner, running a business named “Sarathy Krishnan,” claimed that the seized oil was non-edible and used for lamp oil, contrary to the respondent’s assertion that it was edible oil.

The court considered reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and food analysts. The FSL report suggested that the oil was non-edible, while the food analysts stated that the oil was not fit for edible purposes due to its condition at the time of testing. Based on these conflicting reports, the court declined to make a determination on the nature of the oil.

In its decision, the court directed the parties to approach a civil court to establish their claims based on the purchase vouchers they presented. Additionally, the court ordered the destruction of the 16.6 tons of seized oil and stated that the succeeding party in the civil suit would be entitled to reimbursement of the oil’s value, along with interest from the date of filing the suit.

Date of Decision: 19.01.2024

Menaka VS The State

Download Judgment

Share: