logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 760 print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : CRL A. (MD). No. 1285 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N. MALA
Parties : C. Vinoth Raja Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Inspector of Police, Trichy & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: J. Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel. For the Respondents: B. Nambi Selvan, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 29-01-2026
Head Note :-
BNSS - Section 498 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 498 of BNSS to call for the records of the judgment dated 25.04.2024 in Special Case No.91 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli in Crime No.6 of 2001 on the file of the respondent police and set aside the portion of order directing confiscation of the property of the appellant/3rd party in Old S.No. 1044/1,2 Sub Division Survey No. 1044/61, New Sub Division Survey No.1044/150 in Plot No.37 an extent of 3587 sq.feet of land in Vilpatti Village, Attuvampati, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.)

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment in Special Case No.91 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli dated 25.04.2024, insofar as it relates to the appellant's property in Old S.No.1044/1,2 Sub Division Survey No. 1044/61, New Sub Division Survey No.1044/150 in Plot No.37 an extent of 3587 sq.feet of land in Vilpatti Village, Attuvampati, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

2. The appellant purchased the property in Old S.No.1044/1,2 Sub Division Survey No. 1044/61, New Sub Division Survey No.1044/150 in Plot No.37, admeasuring 3587 sq.feet in Vilpatti Village, Attuvampati, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. The third accused namely, Vasanthi, purchased the above said property and a larger extent on 06.08.1991 vide Document No.922/1991. On 23.02.1994 and 23.06.1994 the said Vasanthi and others sold the property to Suja Investments and Estates rep. by its Proprietor Mr. R. Nageswaran vide Document Nos. 242/1994 and 1193/1994. After developing the land into house sites, the said Suja Investments and Estates rep. by its Proprietor Mr.R.Nageswaran, sold the house plots to Mr.VR.Rajendran, Mr.B.T Deeraj and others under Document Nos. 223/2010, 299/2010 and 937/2021. Subsequently, on 13.02.2023, the said Mr.VR.Rajendran Mr.B.T Deeraj and others entered into partition in which the above said land in Plot No.37 to an extent of 3587, and other lands were allotted to Mr.B.T Deeraj under document No.296/03. Subsequently on 03.02.2025, the said Mr.B.T Deeraj, sold the said land in Plot No.37, to the appellant vide Document No.218/2023. Hence, the appellant, as the absolute owner of the said land with house, is in possession and enjoyment of the same paying the taxes and other charges to the Government.

3. While so, to the shock and surprise of the appellant, the appellant came to know that the property was confiscated by a judgment dated 25.04.2024, in Spl.S.C.No.91 of 2011, of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli, whereunder one V.Janakiraman, Ex-Sub Registrar, Kodaikanal and his wife Vasanthi, were convicted for acquiring disproportionate assets. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy issued a communication dated 29.04.2024, to the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, regarding the confiscation of the properties of the aforesaid persons which included the appellant's property. The appellant, as a third party to the proceedings, was not put on notice of the said proceedings and since the confiscation order affected his rights to his property, he preferred the above criminal appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that some of the purchasers of the property, who were affected by the confiscation order in identical situation, filed criminal appeals before this Court in Crl.A (MD)Nos. 994 to 1019 and 1076 of 2025. This Court, vide common order dated 30.10.2025, allowed the appeals by setting aside the confiscation orders insofar as the property of the appellants therein were concerned and remanded the matters to the learned Special Court to consider the matters afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that issues raised in those appeals are identical to the issues raised in the present appeal and hence prayed that similar orders may be passed in this appeal.

5. I have heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. The appellant claims to be the owner of the property in Old S.No.1044/1,2 Sub Division Survey No. 1044/61, New Sub Division Survey No.1044/150 in Plot No.37, admeasuring 3587 sq.feet, in Vilpatti Village, Attuvampati, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed in Doc.No. 218/23. The appellant states that he is a bonafide purchaser without notice of the criminal case and the confiscation proceedings. The appellant is a third party to the proceedings in Special Case No.91 of 2011, and hence was neither served notice nor heard. The appellant aggrieved by the confiscation order dated 25.04.2024 in Spl.Case No. 91/2011, insofar as it relates to his property in Old S.No.1044/1,2 Sub Division Survey No. 1044/61, New Sub Division Survey No.1044/150 in Plot No.37 admeasuring 3587 sq.feet of land in Vilpatti Village, Attuvampati, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District, has filed the above appeal.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side. It is not in dispute that in several identical matters, this Court has remanded the cases for fresh consideration. The appellant claims to be a bonafide purchaser of the property in question and has specifically asserted that the purchase was effected without any notice or knowledge of the confiscation proceedings. It is evident from the records that no notice and opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant before passing the order of confiscation. Such deprivation of opportunity strikes at the very root of fair procedure and is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of confiscation cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside with a direction to reconsider the matter afresh.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli, dated 25.04.2024, in S.C.No.91/2011 in so far as it relates to the confiscation order in respect of property in S.No.1044/2 and 1044/3 is concerned, which is now sub-divided as S.No. 1044/173, in Vilpatty Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the learned Special Judge, to consider the matter afresh by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the prosecution and thereafter to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.
 
  CDJLawJournal