2017 (8) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing Rs. 1,35,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of seizure i.e. 27.08.1987. 3. The above mentioned materials were seized from the petitioner on the allegation that they were smuggled. Based on the same, prosecution was launched against the petitioner before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, in E.O.C.C.No.490/89 under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The case ended in acquittal by judgment dated 17.05.1993, wherein the Court, after acquitting the petitioner of the charge, directed the respondent to handover the seized materials or pay the sale proceeds of the same. The respondent preferred a revision as against the said order in Crl.R.C.No.554 of 1993 contending that while passing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....contended that the materials objects seized form the accused cannot be directed to be returned to him, since the same had been confiscated as per the proceedings under the Customs Act. 7. This contention, in my view, lacks substance, inasmuch as the properties seized in this case are the subject matter of the offence in respect of which the accused was facing trial. 8. Once it is found by the trial Court after full fledged trial that the respondent/accused would be entitled to the legal possession of the properties in question, the accused would be entitled for the return of the same, particularly, when the trial Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, whereas the accused proved his defence plea through acceptabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e proceeds along with interest. This was received by the office of the respondent on 01.04.2002 as evidenced by the office seal affixed in the representation. This was followed by reminder dated 24.08.2004 sent by the registered post, which has been received by the office of the respondent on 26.08.2004 as seen from the postal acknowledgment. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2004. 6. Though notice has been served, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents till date. Considering the fact that the writ petition is of the year 2004, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending for filing counter affidavit. Therefore, following directions are issued to mee....