Prayer
Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the order passed the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, in Crl.M.P.No.2773/2023 dated 11.07.2023 to return the properties that is lying in the safe custody of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, in Crime No.53 of 2023, to the Petitioner.
Dismissal of section 451 Cr.P.C application by trial court
The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.53 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police. He filed Cr.M.P.No.2773 of 2023 on the file the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi under Section 451 Cr.P.C to seek the interim custody of the jewels and amount of Rs. 2,01,00,000/- which has been robbed from him by the accused in the above crime number. The same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 Cr.M.P.No.2773 of 2023 on the file the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed this revision.
xxx
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by both side and perused the documents and the impugned order.
Facts of the case
6. The respondent police registered the case on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner on 12.03.2023 at 8.00 p.m with allegation that the petitioner is acting as a middle-man and agent to the individual jewellery owners of Karaikudi for the purpose of converting the old gold jewels into new one. In some cases, he sold the old jewels and received money and entrusted with the parties. After converting the said jewels to the extent 1Kg gold jewels and 2 Kg silver bar and cash of Rs.2,01,00,000/-, he returned from Chennai and reached the Kalanivasal Bus Stand, Karaikudi at 5.15 a.m, all the accused abducted him in the car and robbed the above mentioned items along with his two cell phones and they forcefully dropped him at a far away place from his native. Thereafter, with great difficulty, he contacted his sons and reached his native place and preferred the complaint. The respondent police arrested the accused and recovered the goods and cash as mentioned in the petition.
7. The respondent police also examined number of jewellery owners of Karaikudi and all the owners specifically affirmed the entrustment of their jewels and money with the petitioner. They also stated that the petitioner is doing this business for number of years without any adverse remarks. They are also identified their jewels and affirmed the due amount mentioned in the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed the affidavit of the all jewellery owners to prove the entrustment and the lawful possession of the said jewels and cash on behalf of them. In the said circumstances, without any evidence, that the petitioner also a party to the said occurrence, the case of the petitioner to seek the interim custody has to be considered by the learned trial Judge. It is not the police case that the occurrence took place otherwise than the complainant’s version. The accused were also properly identified by the petitioner. Number of other witnesses also examined to prove the lawful possession of the jewels and money of the individual jewellery owners. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat – (file download) (2002) 10 SCC 283, and unreported judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.5254 of 2021 in M/s. PMJ Gems and Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., v. The Inspector of Police, Sankakiri Police Station, Salem District, the petitioner’s right to claim the return of gold articles and recovered cash is no longer res integra. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the relief prayed in Cr.M.P.No. 2773 of 2023 on the file of the trial Court. Hence, the finding of the learned trial Judge that the petitioner has not produced the original receipt to prove ownership is perverse and hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the same.
8. It is settled principle that the pendency of the criminal case has not deprived the complainant/owner of the property, who has nothing to do with the alleged offence to deal with the property. According to the petitioner, the jewels has to be entrusted with the individual jewellery owners. The said jewels are intended to sell. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get back the jewels by furnishing the bank guarantee to the value of the property. In respect of the recovered amount of Rs.2,01,00,000/-, there was no dispute and hence, the same shall be returned without any security.
Parties
R.Ravichandran .. Petitioner/ Petitioner/ De-facto Complainant Vs. The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Karaikudi. .. Respondent / Respondent/ Complainant – Pronounced on : 11.10.2023 – Crl.R.C(MD)No.802 of 2023 – CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/908963
