9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the postal acknowledgment. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2004 - the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation along with copies of the earlier representations and a copy of this order to the respondents within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed by way of remand. - W. P. No. 36132 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthupandiarajan For the Respondents : Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullah Sheriff ORDER Heard Mr.P.Muthupandiarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullah Shereiff, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offence in respect of which the petitioner/accused was facing trial. Ultimately, by order dated 22.01.2002, the said Criminal Revision Case was dismissed. At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the operative portions of the order, which are quoted below:- 5. On careful analysis of the materials, the trial Court found that Ex.P-3, the alleged confession statement obtained from the accused, was not a voluntary one and the same was extracted after subjecting him to torture and the materials produced by the accused through the witnesses and the documents would show that the articles seized from him were purchased by him lawfully and acquitted the accused. While passing the order acquitting the accused, the trial Court directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and reported to the Court. In view of the above, the respondent would be entitled to the return of the sale proceeds of the properties sold during the course of trial, as directed by the trial Court. 11. Therefore, I do not find any valid ground in this revision, as it is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 4. It is relevant to point out that the Criminal Revision Case filed by the respondent was only with regard to the direction issued by the trial Court to return the seized materials and not against the order of acquittal. Therefore, it is the submission of the petitioner that the finding rendered by the Court in the above referred Criminal Revision Case is bindin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
