APHC010190802019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 727/2019 Between: 1. MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD, TRIVANDRUM THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND AREA MANAGER, MR.RAM BABU EMMADI. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O., PATTABHIPURAM P.S., GUNTUR, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2. NARABOINA VANI, W/O. THIMOTHY, 30 YEARS, MUTHARASI NATIVE OF NAGARALU, GORANTLA, NOW AT JANDA CHETTY STREET, PALAKALURU ROAD, GUJJANAGUNDLA, GUNTUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the revision and set a side the judgment dated 12-12-2018 in criminal appeal No 57/2012 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur with regard to the custody of case property i.e. gold ornaments bearing M.Os.No.1 to 39 in CC No 395/2009 before Special Judicial first class Magistrate for prohibition and Excise at Guntur and order the return of the gold ornaments bearing M.O.s 1 to 39 in C.C.No 395/2009 before special judicial first class Magistrate for prohibition and excise at guntur to the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 105 days in allowing the Revision by allowing the above I.A. No.1 of 2019 in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.395 of 2009 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate For Prohibition And Excise At Guntur, pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Petition and to pass 2 IA NO: 3 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant the Petitioner leave to tile the present Criminal Revision Case against the Judgment dated 12th December 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2012 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge Guntur and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the Respondents to forthwith return the custody of gold ornaments bearing M.O.s No. 1 to 39 in C.C.No.395 of 2009 before Special Judicial First Class Magistrate For Prohibition And Excise At Guntur and order the return of the gold ornaments bearing M.O.s 1 to 39 in C.C.No.395 of 2009 before Special Judicial First Class Magistrate For Prohibition And Excise At Guntur to the Petitioner and pass IA NO: 5 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the direction of the II Additional Sessions Judge: Guntur in its Judgment dated 12th December 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2012 that the case property be remitted to the Government Mint Department in the event of the concerned parties failing to file a civil suit in respect of the case property within a period of 6 months and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK ASIF Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 APHC010190852019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 728/2019 Between: 1. MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD, TRIVANDRUM THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND AREA MANAGER, MR. RAM BABU UMMADI. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, THROUGH S.H.O., PATTABHIPURAM P.S., GUNTUR, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP. 2. PEDAKANTI ANJALI A2, W/O NARAYANA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, CASTE VADDERA, R/O KONDAPETA, DONE, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. PEDAKANTI NARAYANA A5, SIO VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, CASTE VADDERA, R/O KONDAPETA, DONE, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the Respondents to forthwith return the custody of gold ornaments bearing M.O.s No. 1 to 39 in C.C.No.395 of 2009 before Special Judicial First Class Magistrate For Prohibition And Excise At Guntur and order the return of the gold ornaments bearing M.O.s 1 to 39 in C.C.No.395 of 2009 before Special Judicial First Class Magistrate For Prohibition And Excise At Guntur IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 103 days in allowing the Revision by allowing the above I.A. No. of 2019 IA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.395 of 2009 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate For Prohibition And Excise At Guntur, pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Petition 4 IA NO: 3 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant the Petitioner leave to file the present Criminal Revision Case against the Judgment dated 12th December 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2012 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge: Guntur IA NO: 4 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the Respondents to forthwith return the custody of gold ornaments bearing M.O.s No. 1 to 39 in C.C.No.395 of 2009 before Special Judicial First Class Magistrate For Prohibition And Excise At Guntur and order the return of the gold ornaments bearing M.O.s 1 to 39 in C.C.No.395 of 2009 before Special Judicial First Class Magistrate For Prohibition And Excise At Guntur IA NO: 5 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the direction of the U Additional Sessions Judge: Guntur in its Judgment dated 12°' December 2018 in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2012 that the case property be remitted to the Government Mint Department in the event of the concerned parties failing to file a civil suit in respect of the case property within a period of 6 months Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK ASIF Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 5 APHC010190942019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 729/2019 Between: 1. MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD, TRIVANDRUM THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND AREA MANAGER, MR ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, THROUGH S.H.O., PATTABHIPURAM P.S., GUNTUR, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP. 2. MACHAVARAPU ARUNA SRI PW1, W/O SAMBASIVA RAO, R/O RAMA KRISHNA NILAYAM, RL LANE, NAVABHARATH NAGAR, GUNTUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the revision and set-aside the Judgment dated 12th December 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2014 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge Guntur with regard to the custody of case property i.e. gold ornaments bearing M.O.s No. 1 to 39 in C.C.No.395 of 2009 before Special Judicial First Class Magistrate For Prohibition And Excise At Guntur and order the return of the gold ornaments bearing M.O.s 1 to 39 in C.C.No.395 of 2009 before Special Judicial First Class Magistrate For Prohibition And Excise At Guntur IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 72 days in allowing the Revision by allowing the above I.A. No. of 2019 in the interest of justice IA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the direction of the II Additional Sessions Judge: Guntur in its Judgment dated 12th December 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2014 that the case property be remitted to the Government Mint Department in the event of the concerned parties failing to file a civil suit in respect of the case property within a period of 6 months and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble High Court 6 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK ASIF Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 7 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: As all these criminal revision petitions are filed by Muthoot Fincorp Limited connected on factual matrix, parties are one and the same, they are tagged together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Crl.R.C. No. 727 of 2019 This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the Petitioner aggrieved by the Judgment dated 12.12.2018 in Crl.A.No.57 of 2012 on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Crl.R.C. No. 728 of 2019 This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the Petitioner aggrieved by the Judgment dated 12.12.2018 in Crl.A.No.68 of 2012 on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Crl.R.C. No. 727 of 2019 This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the Petitioner aggrieved by the Judgment dated 12.12.2018 in Crl.A.No.193 of 2014 on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Case of the Prosecution At the relevant point of time, the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was doing sarees and gold business in Guntur. During such time, A.1 used to take gold ornaments from the Complainant/P.W.1 and sell them to A.2 to A.4 on 8 commission basis. Believing the words of the Accused, the P.W.1 entrusted the gold ornaments weighing one kg, worth Rs.16,53,000/- to the Accused in the presence of the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the Accused cheated P.W.1 and misappropriated the subject property by pledging the ornaments and used the amounts for their personal purpose. On 28.11.2008, all the accused pledged 207 grams of ornaments and on 29.11.2008 pledged 216 grams of ornaments in the name of A.2, in Muthoot Finance Corporation and took an amount of Rs.3,53,600/- and out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to P.W.1 and the remaining amount was distributed among the accused. On 02.12.2008, the accused again pledged 464 grams of ornaments and on 03.12.2008, pledged 244 grams of gold ornaments in the name of A.3 and obtained an amount of Rs.5,84,707/- from Muthoot Financial Corporation. Basing on the report of P.W.1, a case in Crime No.22 of 2009 of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur is registered against the Accused. After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.5 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The Learned Special Judicial I Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur took chargesheet on file vide CC No.395 of 2009. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 8 were marked as Exs.P1 to P18 and M.Os.1 to 39, on behalf of the prosecution. The Learned Magistrate, after full length of Trial acquitted A.1 and A.4 and found A.2, A.3 and A.5 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The A.2, A.3 and A.5 were convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine amount of Rs.1,000/- each in default, to suffer 9 simple imprisonment for two months each, for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction, A.3 filed Crl.A.No.57 of 2012, A.2 and A.5 filed Crl.A.No.68 of 2012 and Muthoot Fincorp Limited filed Crl.A.No.193 of 2014 seeking return of gold ornaments which were seized by the police. The Learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur having considered the evidence on record and the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, by Judgment dated 12.12.2018, allowed Crl.A.No.57 of 2012 and set aside the conviction and sentence against A.3; allowed Crl.A.No.68 of 2012 and set aside the conviction and sentence against A.2 and A.5 passed by the leaned Magistrate vide Judgment dated 15.02.2005 in CC No.395 of 2009. However, Crl.A.No.193 of 2014 filed by the Muthoot Company is dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Judgments, the present criminal revision cases are filed as stated above. Heard Sri Shaik Asif, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Muthoot Fincorp Limited and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent State. Notices are issued to unofficial respondents, but none represented on their behalf. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is a Finance Company and the gold ornaments (M.Os.1 to 39) which are pledged by A.2 and A.3 with Petitioner Company were seized by the Police and as per Section 173 of the Indian Contract Act, the petitioner company is entitled to retain the pledged property. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no evidence to show that PW1 gave such a huge gold to the Accused. Further, 10 the Courts below while acquitting the accused for the offences alleged against them, ought to have directed restoration of M.Os.1 to 39 to the Petitioner being the pledgee. Further, the seizure of M.Os. from the lawful possession of the of the Petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that the entrustment of gold ornaments to the Accused by P.W.1 is proved and that the prosecution witnesses supported version of the Prosecution. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate Orders. This Court has carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the appellant and the State. A bare perusal of material on record would show that the Petitioner/company has in substance challenged the orders passed by the Courts below wherein the request of the petitioner to return the gold ornaments is not accepted. Now the present criminal revision petitions are filed by the petitioner challenging the direction of the learned Sessions Judge, to approach concerned Civil Court, in view of rival claims regarding M.Os. 1 to 39. The only question that falls for consideration in these criminal revision cases is about return of M.Os.1 to 39 to the Petitioner Company. The offences alleged against the Accused are under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The Learned Magistrate vide Judgment, dated 15.02.2012, acquitted A.1 and A.4 and convicted A.2, A.3 and A.5 and ordered to return M.Os.1 to 39 to 11 P.W.1 after expiry of the appeal time. In Criminal Appeal, the learned District Judge by Judgment, dated 12.12.2018, the Learned Judge observed that none of the parties therein are entitled to possession of the M.Os. 1 to 39 and the petitioner herein may file civil suit to establish their claim over the M.Os. The relevant operative portion of the Judgment reads thus: ” ........ So far as the case property is concerned i.e., M.Os.1 to 39, since there is serious claim as to ownership of the property from both the accused and the complainant, it is not safe to return the case properties to any of the parties herein and it is proper to direct the parties to establish their claim over the case properties before the Civil Court. Therefore, the trial Court is directed not to return the said property to any of the parties unless and until they establish their claim before the civil court by filing a civil suit within six months from the date of this judgment failing which the trial Court is directed to take necessary steps to remit the same to Government Mint as per law.” As per the evidence on record, P.W.1 said to have entrusted the gold ornaments i.e. M.Os.1 to 39 to A.2 to A.4 for sale on commission basis, for which the A.1 stood as guarantor. The Accused neither returned the ornaments nor paid the equal amount to P.W.1. Except quotations, Exs.P2 to P11, P.W.1 did not file any record in support of the entrustment of the said gold to the accused. The P.W.7, who is the Manager of the Petitioner Company deposed that the gold loan was sanctioned to A.2, A.3 and A.5 on pledging M.Os.1 to 39 and under Ex.P14 Mahazar, the Police seized the same from the Accused. The office has taken all precautions before release of the loan amounts and the same is not disputed by the Accused. Initially, the accused paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards repayment of gold loan and subsequently, they failed to pay the remaining amounts. 12 In view of the rival claims over the gold ornaments by the petitioner/company and P.W.1, it is just and appropriate to direct the petitioner/company to approach the concerned Civil Court and establish their claim over the M.Os. 1 to 39. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of. Petitioner/Company is directed to approach the concerned Civil Court and take appropriate steps to establish their claim over the M.Os. 1 to 39, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed. Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 04.02.2026 Mjl/* 13 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Revision Case Nos. 727, 728 and 729 of 2019 04.02.2026 Mjl/*