Crl.R.C(MD)No.1284 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 03.12.2024 Pronounced on : 07.01.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI Crl.R.C(MD)No.1284 of 2024 M.Pandian ... Petitioner Vs. State of Tamilnadu rep.by The Inspector of Police, Appanthirupathi Police Station, Madurai. (Crime No.171 of 2023) ... Respondent PRAYER : This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.4537 of 2024, dated 29.10.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.side) 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1284 of 2024 ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 29.10.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4537 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai and to set aside the same and to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate to return the seized jewels to the revision petitioner on interim custody. 2.The brief facts of the case: The revision petitioner is running two pawn shops in the name of Sri Amman Finance, one at Kadachanendal and another at K.Pudur. The first accused Muthupriya is working in his shop for nine months and since the petitioner used to visit two shops, the first accused is maintaining his pawnshop at Kadachanendal. On 20.10.2023, the petitioner checked account notes and jewels, whileso some of the jewels were missing. On enquiry, Accused No.1/Muthupriya told that she along with Accused No.2/Shobana stole 722.400 gram jewels. Hence, the petitioner lodged a police complaint. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.171 of 2023 U/s.381 and 109 of IPC against Muthupriya and Shobana and during investigation, nearly 30 sovereign jewels were recovered and remanded into Court. The petitioner filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.4537 of 2024 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Madurai, for interim 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1284 of 2024 custody of the jewels and the said petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is not the owner of the property. 3. Aggrieved by that order, the revision petitioner has come forward with this present Criminal Revision Case. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is running pawn shop, where the first accused/ Muthupriya was working. While checking accounts, it was learnt that the account was not tallied and 722.400 grams (90.300 sovereigns) of gold jewels were missing. Hence, the present case has been registered in Crime No.171 of 2023 by respondent police against the accused Muthupriya and Shobana. During investigation, nearly 242.370 grams of jewels were recovered and the same were remanded in RPR.No.433/2024 before the trial Court. The said jewels were pledged with the petitioner by some third parties at the time of the loan process, so the petitioner is the present custodian of the jewels till the loans are repaid. Therefore, the interim custody of the jewels may be granted to the petitioner. 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1284 of 2024 6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is not the owner of the seized jewels and the entire stolen property was also not recovered and hence if the jewels are returned to the petitioner, further investigation would be affected. 7. On hearing both sides and perusal of records, it is clear that the petitioner is running pawn shop in the name of Sri Amman Finance at Kadachanendal where the first accused was working and in charge of that shop. There is no dispute in it. The case was registered alleging that Accused No.1/Muthupriya along with Accused No.2/Shobana had stolen the jewels weighing about 722.400 grams and pledged the same in some other finance company for doing money lending business, so the case was registered U/s.381 and 109 of IPC. Now, it is stated that 242.370 gram jewels were recovered and remanded into Court in RPR.No.433/2024. It is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner is the present custodian of the jewels till the loans are settled by loanees. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court issued guidelines in the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case reported in 2003 (1) CTC 175 in respect of return of seized properties. In similar nature of this case, the 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1284 of 2024 learned Single Judge passed the order in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2020 on 22.03.2022, in view of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No. 1420 of 2016, dated 21.04.2016. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the order observed in paragraph Nos.5 to 7 in Crl.R.C.No.597 of 2020 is as follows: ''5. …......Similarly placed matters were already ordered by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No. 1420 of 2016 on 21.04.2016 as follows: “9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the existence of corpus delicti may provide a surer foundation for the prosecution case, but the absence of it, can in no way destroy the prosecution assertion, if the prosecution is able to prove the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC by adducing proper evidence. From the perusal of the case diary, it is seen that the Police have recorded the statement of the Branch Manager of Muthoot Finance, Kovilpatti Branch, who is going to speak about the pledge of jewels and other details from the records and in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not necessary for the Police to seize the jewels in the present facts and circumstances of the case. However, the Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance is directed to produce and submit the jewels before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti at the time of giving evidence and the learned Magistrate shall accept the jewels and pass appropriate orders either under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for interim custody or retain the same and pass appropriate orders under Section 452 Cr.P.C. at the time of final judgment. Muthoot Finance shall not bring the jewels to 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1284 of 2024 auction until the dispute is finally decided in the prosecution in Crime No.460 of 2013. After the Manager, Muthoot Finance is examined, Meera (the defacto complainant) can be examined or may be recalled and examined under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for identifying the jewels. This is left to the sound discretion of the Trial Court” 6. In view of the above, the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.2263 of 2019 in C.C.No.124 of 2008 in Cr.No. 3 of 2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, (CCIW), Madurai, on 31.07.2020 is set aside and this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. 7. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, (CCIW), Madurai is directed to return the jewels, in favour of the petitioner with the following conditions: (a) that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court; (b) that the seized items should be photographed at the cost of the petitioner herein and a list is to be prepared and the same is to be signed by the petitioner; (c) that the petitioner shall not bring the jewels to auction, till the disposal of trial; (d) that the petitioner shall produce the jewels before the trial Court as and when required;'' 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1284 of 2024 In view of the above and also considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow this revision subject to conditions. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, and the order, dated 29.10.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4537 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Madurai, is hereby set aside. The jewels weighing about 242.370 grams remanded in RPR.No.433/2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Madurai are ordered to be returned to the petitioner on interim custody on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai. ii)The jewels in question shall be photographed in different angle in the presence of Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Madurai at the cost of the petitioner and the petitioner’s signature to be obtained in the back side of the photographs and the said photographs and CD shall be kept in the case bundle for the purpose of marking them as material objects during trial; 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1284 of 2024 iii) The petitioner shall produce the jewels before the trial Court as and when required; iv) The petitioner shall not return the jewels to the loanees or bring the jewels to auction, till the disposal of case in Crime No.171 of 2023 of respondent police. 07.01.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No VSD To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Appanthirupathi Police Station, Madurai. (Crime No.171 of 2023) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1284 of 2024 P.VADAMALAI, J. VSD Pre - Delivery Order made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.1284 of 2024 07.01.2025 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis