Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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

 

Similar News