Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JOBIN SEBASTIAN, JJ
Ramesh Mohan, S/o. Mohanan A.K. – Appellant
Versus
Manappuram Finance Ltd., Represented By Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Sivakumara N. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.)
The appellant is the defacto complainant in Crime No.365 of 2024 of Vilappilsala Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 409 , 420 and 381 of the Indian Penal Code . The accused in the case is one Kiran. The accused was an employee in the jewellery of the appellant. The allegation is that the accused had stolen 350 gms of gold worth Rs.24 lakhs from the jewellery of the appellant.
2. The first respondent filed the writ petition from which the writ appeal arises challenging a notice issued by the investigating officer invoking Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), directing them to produce the gold ornaments pledged by the accused with them at their Peyad Branch, as the said gold ornaments were found to have been stolen by the accused from the jewellery of the appellant. Ext.P4 is the notice issued by the Investigating Officer in this regard. The appellant was arrayed as the additional third respondent in the writ petition.
3. A statement has been filed by the investigating officer in the writ petition stating that the stolen articles were recovered from the Peyad and Vattiyoorkavu branche
The defacto complainant has the right to seek interim custody of stolen articles, and the investigating officer must produce them before the jurisdictional court.
Interim custody of evidence can be granted under appropriate conditions despite previous dismissals to preserve integrity during trial.
An interim custody application for property pending trial is unsustainable if trial has concluded; the relevant provision becomes Section 452 for property disposal post-trial.
The court emphasized the need for expedited interim custody of property under S.451, ensuring rightful claimants are heard and property is not unduly retained by authorities.
Pawnee rights under the Indian Contract Act do not extend to crime proceeds; compliance with investigative notices prevails to protect victims' property rights.
Judicial authority must provide reasons for denying custody of funds, emphasizing the need for reconsideration of claims in criminal proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
