Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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