Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 58
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS MADURAI BENCH
M. Venugopal, J.
S. Arunkumar – Appellant
Vs.
State – Respondent
Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 6 of 2016
Decided On : 11-1-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For The Appellant: Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for Ajmal Associates.
For The Respondent:P. Kandasamy, Government Advocate.
Headnote:
Criminal Produce Code, 1973 – Sections 161, 451 and 457 - Seized properties - Gold ornaments seized by the Police – Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases – Investigation - Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner urges before this Court that the trial Court while passing impugned order had not borne in mind that in the present case, the seized properties are in the nature of gold ornaments and that photographs of the same along with other jewels is enough for Investigating Agency to complete the Investigation - Held, This Court on a careful consideration of respective contentions and also taking note of fact that they were stolen from Petitioner/Finance Company and later, they have been recovered along with cash by Police, at this stage, this Court is of considered view that Petitioner/Finance Company is legitimately entitled to stake its rightful claim for interim custody of jewels and cash in question and in this regard, trial Court is to bear in mind only aspect of possession and right of possession alone - Viewed in that perspective, impugned order in Cr. M.P. passed by trial Court in imposing condition appears to be harsh, burden-some and onerous from point of view of Petitioner/Revision Petitioner/Accused - As such, this Court to prevent aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice sets aside same in to and allows Criminal Revision Petition - Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
1. The Revision Petitioner/Petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order, dated 16.12.2015 in Cr. M.P. No. 10363 of 2015 (filed by the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner under Section 451 of Cr. P.C.) in Crime No. 375 of 2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai.
2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai while passing the impugned order in Cr. M.P. No. 10363 of 2015 (filed by the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner) on 16.12.2015, had inter-alia observed as follows:
"Considering the both side submission and Section, Case-Laws cited above, this Court is inclined to return the amount and jewels to the Petitioner Mr. Arunkumar (Area Manager) Represented by Manappuram finance, and upon the following condition:
Condition:
1) The Petitioner shall execute Bond for Rs. 1,80,000/-
2) Petitioner's Bank should execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (1 crore) alone with sureties(property) executing bond and the same amount.
3) One of the employee of the Petitioner's Bank shall execute bond for Rs. 10,00,000/-(Ten lakh) with 1 surety.
4) The property should not dispense(to the customer) without the permission of Court. 5) the Petitioner shall take photos of the property in each item No. (item no should be visible) and produce the same with C.D.''
3. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner urges before this Court that the trial Court while passing the impugned order had not borne in mind that in the present case, the seized properties are in the nature of gold ornaments and that photographs of the same along with other jewels is enough for the Investigating Agency to complete the Investigation.
4. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner submits that the Manappuram Finance is a registered legal entity and in law, a separate individual and moreover, once the jewels are returned to the Manappuram Finance, its obligatory on the part of the said Finance Company to return the gold jewels to the respective owners in the event of discharge of liability. Therefore, in the impugned order, the condition imposed by the trial Court is a impracticable and onerous one. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contends that there exists two conditions for the release of property under Section 457 of Cr. P.C. namely, (1) property must be seized by the Police(2) property must not be required to produce before the Court.
5. Further, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner cites a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramprakash vs. State of Haryana, AIR 78 SC 1282, whereby and where-under, it is held that release of property under Section 457 of Cr. P.C. is of paramount consideration in the interest of justice.
6. Lastly, it is the stand of the Petitioner that in the event of gold ornaments seized by the Police are not returned to the Petitioner/Manappuram Finance, the Petitioner as well as the general public would be adversely affected. Therefore a specific plea is taken on behalf of the Petitioner that the physical characteristics of the properties in question can be recorded by the trial Court and in this regard, photographs from different angles also to be taken. If that is done, then alteration of the physical characteristics of the jewels would not adversely affect the investigation.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner cites the judgment of High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C. No. 4485 of 2013 and Crl. M.A. No. 16055 of 2013 reported in (Equivalent citation : 2015 II AD (Delhi) 594, 214 (2014) DLT 646, whereby and where-under, at Para 59 to 64, it is observed as follows:
"59. The valuable articles seized by the Police may be released to the person, who, in the opinion of the Court, is lawfully entitled to claim such as the complaint at whose house theft, robbery or Dacoity has taken place, after preparing detailed panchanama of such articles; taking photographs of such articles and a securi
