The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to establish ownership of seized property and the discretion of the court in deciding whether to release the property, considering the interests of justice and the prospective necessity of the production of the seized articles at the time of the trial.

The Petitioner/Appellant has projected the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the order of dismissal passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, dated 22.4.2013 in Crl.R.C.No.8/2011.

2. The Learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, while passing the impugned order in Crl.R.C.No.8/2011, dated 22.4.2013, had, inter alia, in paragraph Nos.10 and 11, stated the following:-

“10. The Hon'ble High Court in Crl.R.P.253/2009, dated 03.04.2009, in Kalluram Versus State represented by the Nannilam Police Station, had held as the case is pending for trial before the court below, the properties seized from the accused in the form of ingots shall not be returned at this stage, as the ownership of the properties has to be established as per the procedure known to law and the same is also required for marking the material objects in this case, and hence I could not find no error or infirmity in the impugned order dismissing the petition filed by the Petitioner, and the Cr.R.P. is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, in the matter of the return of the properties, when the properties is being formed into ingot may not be returned to the party, unless the ownership of the defacto Complainant is established, that can be decided only by the trial. On the strength of the above judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, and the facts and circumstances of the cases, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai, and accordingly, the order passed by the trial court in rejecting the application is hereby confirmed for different reasons.”

“and resultantly dismissed the Revision thereby confirming the order dated 6.1.2011 passed by the trial court in Crl.M.P. 138[A] of 2011.

3. According to the Learned counsel for the Appellant, both the Courts below had failed to appreciate that the Appellant/Petitioner gave an undertaking to return the ingots as and when the Court issue directions to produce the same. Therefore, there would be no question of changing or altering the original ingots.

4. The Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the Appellant is a Doctor by profession and also a senior citizen practicing for the past 60 years and is not going to change or alter the ingots. The Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently submits that the first appellate Court, while dismissing the Revision Petition, had relied on this Court's order dated 3.4.2009 in Crl.R.P.253/2009, which is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

5. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the Appellant that both the courts below failed to take into account a very vital fact that the occurrence took place on 21.5.2010 and the accused were arrested and the case articles and other things were recovered on 18.6.2010, 25.6.2010, 28.7.2010 and 26.8.2010. Moreover, the ingots were recovered on 28.7.2010. Although, as per the First Information Report, 60 sovereigns of gold was stolen, the recovery was made only for 55 sovereigns and a sum of Rs.40,000/-, out of Rs.1 lakh, was recovered.

6. Conversely, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that both the Courts below had dismissed Crl.M.P. 138[A] of 2011 on 6.1.2011 and Crl.R.C.No.8/2011 on 22.4.2013 filed by the Appellant/Petitioner, and in fact, the first appellate Court had opined that when the properties were in the form of ingots, they may not be returned to the party, unless the ownership of the Defacto Complainant was established and this could be decided only by trial of the main case. In effect, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant supports the orders of the trial court as well as the first appellate Court and further, it is represented on the part of the Respondent/Complainant that at this distance point of time, the said orders may not be interfered with by this Court sitting in Appeal Jurisdiction.

7. In the counter filed by