M. Kalaiselvam and Meenakshisundiram vs State

This revision has been preferred against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai passed in Crl. M.P. No. 3806 of 2008 in CC. No. 954 of 2003 and on 02.12.2008.

The petitioners herein, having been accused of offences under Sections 498-A, 494,506(ii) I.P.C. and Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, were remanded before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai on 09.04.2003. Subsequently, they were enlarged on bail by the said Court on condition that each of them deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cash security under orders in Crl. M.P. No. 1911 of 2003 passed on 11.04.2003. Having deposited such amount, the petitioners hold receipt No. 81009 dated 11.04.2003 in proof thereof. The petitioners with others were tried in C.C. No. 954 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 498-A I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Their appeal in C.A. No. II of 2008 was dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Madurai on 23.09.2008. Against such dismissal the petitioners herein moved Crl. R.C (MD) No. 857 of 2008 before this Court and by order dated 28.08.2008 in M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2008, this Court has suspended the sentence. The bail conditions have been complied with. Subsequently, the petitioners moved a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai seeking refund of the amount of Rs. 20,000/- deposited by them on 11.04.2003, which was taken as cash security, while bail was granted to the petitioners in Crl. M.P. No. 3806 of 2003. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said petition, the petitioners have moved this present revision.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State.

The only reason accorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai in dismissing the petition is that the revision against the confirmation of conviction by the first appellate Court is pending before this Court. The reason accorded is not sustainable. The merits or otherwise of the revision case and the final verdict thereon have nothing to do with the deposit, the refund of which has been sought by the petitioners. Thus in the circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai.

In the result, this revision case is allowed by setting aside the order dated 02.12.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai in Crl. M.P. No. 3806 of 2008 in C.C. No. 954 of 2003 and the lower Court is directed to refund the deposited sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioners.