ORDER :

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent- State.

2. This petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India essentially seeking relief to release the muddamal Gold Ornaments which was seized in pursuant to the FIR bearing C.R. No. 11216011220065 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420 and 170 of IPC and also prays to quash and set aside the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by learned 4th Additional J.M.F.C. Gandhinagar rejecting the application of the petitioner for interim custody of the said muddamal.

3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent-State.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the complainant has filed the aforesaid complaint. Thereafter, petitioner approached the learned Courts below for release of the aforesaid muddamal which came to be rejected, therefore this petition.

5. The attention of the Court was invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein the Apex Court in regard to the valuable articles and currency notes, held that no useful purpose would be served to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over and in such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. at the earliest.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this petition and submits that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the muddamal golden chain can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate, still however it was urged that the present petition may not be entertained.

7. Considering the facts of the case, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai’s case (supra), the relevant portion of which reads thus:

“5. Section 451clearly empowers the Court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as:

(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial.

(2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it think necessary.

(3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same.

7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody.

3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail.

4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

8. The question of proper custody of the seized article is raised in number of matters. In Smt. Baswa Kom Dyanmangouda Patil vs. State of Mysore and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 358, this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under:

“4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property