Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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

 

Latest Legal News