Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 1073
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
NISHAMOL W/O.SALIN THOMAS – PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – RESPONDENT
Crl.MC.No.6787 OF 2019(G)
Decided On : 30-01-2020
FOR THE PETITIONER:SRI.P.V.SANTHOSH JOSE, SMT.ANJALY N.S., Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENT: SR. PP SRI. AMJAD ALI
The main legal point established is that under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recovered stolen property, even if converted, can be returned to the rightful owner.
Headnote:
Section 451 - Recovery of stolen property - Court allows return of converted gold ingot to petitioner
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's stolen bangles were converted into a gold ingot and recovered by the investigating agency. The court below dismissed the petitioner's application for release of the ingot, stating that since the recovery was not as bangles, it cannot be said that the same belongs to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and directed the jurisdictional Magistrate to return the ingot to the petitioner after imposing appropriate conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the converted gold ingot, derived from the petitioner's stolen bangles, could be returned to the petitioner under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the gold ingot was placed on record by the investigating agency as one converted from the stolen bangles, it can be returned to the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the return of the converted gold ingot to the petitioner, setting aside the lower court's order.
JUDGMENT
This Crl.M.C. is instituted challenging the order in Crl.M.P. No.2186 of 2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.
2. It is stated that two bangles of the petitioner were stolen by the first accused who was working as a security person in the hospital where the petitioner is working. It is also stated later with the aid of the second accused, the first accused sold the bangles to a jewellery. During the course of investigation, it is seen that based on the confession statement given by the second accused, a gold ingot was seized from the jewellery, as in the meanwhile, the ornament was converted by the jeweller as an ingot. The petitioner in the circumstances, filed an application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the recovered gold ingot. The application was dismissed by the court below on the ground that since the recovery was not as bangles, it cannot be said that the same belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Insofar as the gold ingot, in respect of which the relief was sought by the petitioner, was placed on record by the investigating agency as one converted from the stolen bangles, I am of the view that the same can be returned to the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions.
In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the jurisdictional Magistrate is directed to return the ingot to the petitioner after imposing appropriate conditions.
