CRL RC/2267/2026 of Perumal Vs State Represented By, The Inspector of Police on 1 October 2026

ORDER

The revision challenges the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners seeking return of the original sale deed bearing Doc.No.604/2022, which was seized by the investigating officer during the course of investigation in Crime No.9 of 2002.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners’ son, who was arrayed as A1, along with A2 had committed the offence of cheating to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-; and that out of the proceeds of crime, a property was purchased in the name of the petitioners herein by sale deed bearing Doc.No.604/2022.

3. Admittedly, A1 died pending trial in C.C.No.321 of 2003 and A2 was absconding. Since the case was pending for nearly 24 years, the prosecution sought permission for withdrawal of the case, which was permitted by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the petitioners sought return of the document, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

4. Mr.B.Vasudevan. learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the prosecution has been withdrawn even as against A2 and the charge against A1, who was the son of the petitioners, abated, the document seized from the petitioners ought to have been returned to the petitioners.

5. Per contra, Mr.A.Amarnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the impugned order is justified inasmuch as the learned Magistrate observed that the petitioners themselves submitted a letter admitting that the property was purchased out of the crime proceeds.

6. The respondent have withdrawn the case in C.C.No.321 of 2003, since A2 could not be secured though the case was filed in the year 2003 and the petitioners’ son/A1 died pending trial. The only reason stated by the learned Magistrate for rejecting the petitioners’ request is that the petitioners had sent a letter on 04.10.2002 to the investigating officer admitting that the property was purchased out of crime proceeds. This fact is found in the objection filed on behalf of the respondent by the Public Prosecutor. Firstly, the learned Magistrate ought not to have relied upon a letter addressed to the police to hold that the property was purchased out of crime proceeds. Secondly, the prosecution had not established that the crime was committed as could be seen from the fact that the case has been withdrawn. In such circumstances, the impugned order rejecting the petitioners’ request cannot be sustained.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. sp

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem in C.M.P.No.4565 of 2025 in C.C.No.321 of 2003 is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, the learned Magistrate is directed to return the sale deed bearing Doc.No.604/2022 that was seized from the petitioners to the petitioners, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sp To

1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Salem.

2. The Inspector of Police, CCB Police, Salem City.