The Revision Petitioner/Defacto Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court, as against the order, dated 8/12/2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.990 of 2015, in Crime No.148 of 2015 by the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, Salem District.

2. The Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, Salem District, while passing the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.990 of 2015 (filed by the Revision Petitioner/Defacto Complainant as petitioner), at paragraph 4, had inter alia observed that

“... In the present petition, the gold jewels sought for by the petitioner is of different varieties and in receipt note book produced by the petitioner and in note books, the weight of the jewels and the weight of the jewels produced by the Investigating Officer, there is a difference and further, in the complete statement of the Petitioner, the Petitioner had only stated a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-alone was lost by means of theft and also in the Petition, only a sum of Rs.8,57,520/-was only prayed for to be returned and added further, in respect of the aforesaid amount/money, one Narayanan had filed Crl.M.P.No.2722 of 2015, claiming the entire amount and the said petition is also pending and also that no one statement from the witnesses was produced before the Court by the Investigating Officer and also since the Investigation is not yet completed and also that the Accused are absconding and at the time of enquiry of the Sessions Court, the jewels which were pledged in different pawn shops and as such they were not to be handed over and since the Accused were also involved in other cases and in the other cases, the case related jewels are to be produced and there is a possibility to produce the same and when the theft of 300 sovereigns is said to be and when the Investigating Officer had produced, the different types of jewels weighing 350 sovereigns and also in the form of gold in bars and in respect of silver articles, proper documents and receipts were not produced and resultantly dismissed the petition.”

3. Being dissatisfied with the order of dismissal, dated 8/12/2015, in Crl.M.P.No.990 of 2015, passed by the trial Court, the Revision Petitioner/Defacto Complaint has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition, contending that the impugned order passed by the trial Court, dated 8/12/2015, is an erroneous one against Law, weight or evidence and opposed to facts.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is running 'SPR Bankers' and therefore, she is entitled to get back the 'Return of the stolen properties' in question.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that it is a primary responsibility of the Petitioner to get back the stolen properties, all the more when she is the Defacto Complainant in Crime No.148 of 2015 on the file of the Respondent/Police. Apart from that, she had produced the document pertaining to the mortgaged receipt concerning the jewels and this vital aspect was not appreciated by the trial Court in a real and proper perspective, which has resulted in serious miscarriage of Justice.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects a legal argument that the individuals who had pledged the jewels with the Petitioner are pressurising the Petitioner for the return of the jewels which were stolen from 'SPR Bankers' (run by the Petitioner) and since the Mortgagors are the real owners of the jewels in question and when the said jewels were pledged with the Petitioner's 'SPR Bankers', then it is the primordial duty of the Petitioner to return back the jewels to the Mortgagors when they redeem the said jewels after paying the necessary principal sum and interest arising thereto.

7. Lastly, it is the stand of the Petitioner that the reasons assigned by the trial Court in dismissing Crl.M.P.No.990 of 2015 are not correct in the eye of Law and as such, the same are to be set aside to promote the substantial cause