Velmurugan vs Police Department rep by Inspector of police, K.V.Nallur PS Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 5/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438(1). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 28th April 2026.
CRLR - Criminal Revision Petition
CNR: TNTS010007302026
e-Filing Number
24-01-2026
Filing Number
577/2026
Filing Date
06-02-2026
Registration No
5/2026
Registration Date
06-02-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Tenkasi
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
FIR Details
FIR Number
126
Police Station
Karivalamvanthanallur P.S.,
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Velmurugan
Adv. MORRIS MOHAMED THAREEK M
Respondent(s)
Police Department rep by Inspector of police, K.V.Nallur PS (Police Station) Advocate - Public Prosecutor
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 20-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 02-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Principal Sessions Judge, Tenkasi allowed the criminal revision petition and ordered the return of Rs. 1,05,000 in cash to the petitioner Velmurugan. The court found that the petitioner had provided his Canara Bank Account Statement showing sufficient funds before the seizure, the case had been closed as "L.F." (lost and found/no further action), and the police had not objected to the return, thereby causing no prejudice to the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Principal Sessions Judge, Tenkasi allowed the criminal revision petition and ordered the return of Rs. 1,05,000 in cash to the petitioner Velmurugan. The court found that the petitioner had provided his Canara Bank Account Statement showing sufficient funds before the seizure, the case had been closed as "L.F." (lost and found/no further action), and the police had not objected to the return, thereby causing no prejudice to the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts