Aggrieved by the dismissal of his property return petition in Crl.M.P.No.4781 of 2015, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, the de facto complainant has directed this revision.

2. The revision petitioner is a businessman in Sivakasi. He seems to be an affluent man. On 04.03.2015, some unidentified persons posing themselves as Police Officials visited the petitioner's Office and took him to an undisclosed place. The fake Policeman interrogated him and they intended to effect some recovery. They have adopted their own method of investigation. They put up a demand of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for his release. Rs.25,00,000/- was arranged and paid to them in 2 installments, namely, Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/-. Thereafter, on 05.03.2015, the captive was released from their clutches.

3. Subsequently, on 11.03.2015, the petitioner lodged a complaint with Sivakasi East Police. Based on his complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.94 of 2015, for offences under Sections 452, 365, 147, 148, 342, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Investigation was over. Final report also was filed. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, took cognizance in P.R.C.No.73 of 2015.

4. During investigation, based on their confessional statement, the Investigation Officer effected the following recoveries:

Accused	Recovery
Duraipandi (A1)	Rs.7,00,000/- + 3 ¾ Soverigns Jewels
Seemaichamy (A2)	Rs.1,00,000/-
V.C.Raja	4 Soverigns Chain
Ganesan @ Ayyar (A4)	Rs.1,40,000/-
Kumar (A5)	Rs.50,000/-
Vinodkannan (A9)	Rs.1,50,000/-
Daniel (A10)	Rs.50,000/-
David (A11)	Rs.10,000/-
Killadi @ Suresh (A12)	Rs.15,000/-
Sarles @ Saravanan (A13)	Rs.2,00,000/-
Ganesan (Others)	Rs.10,000/-
Total Cash Jewels	Rs.14,25,000/- + 7 ¾ Soverigns

5. The Investigation Officer produced the said case-properties before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, on the order passed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, R.P.Numbers were assigned. Accused were remanded to judicial custody.

6. Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.4781 of 2015, under Section 451 Cr.P.C., for return of the said properties to him.

7. A1 to A3 Duraipandi, Seemaichamy and V.C.Raja respectively have filed counters making rival claim. They have stated that the Police forcibly obtained those properties from them and the properties belongs to them.

8. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, coming to the view that there are rival claims, dismissed the property return petition, however, ordered depositing of the cash in a Bank.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused have demanded a ransom money of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the release of the petitioner. But, the petitioner could muster only Rs.25,00,000/- through his family members. That was given to the accused. And, his release was secured. Ultimately, Police could recover only Rs.14,25,000/- and jewels weighing 7 ¾ Sovereigns. Cash belongs to him. Since the jewels came out of the ransom money, they also belongs to him. There is no acceptable basis or concrete materials for the accused to claim the said properties.

10. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that during the investigation these case-properties were recovered by the Investigation Officer from the respective accused.

11. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) also submitted that these recoveries were effected based on the disclosure statement of the accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In their Confessional Statement, the accused have also stated that the ransom money was shared among themselves and some of the accused have purchased jewels out of their share of money.

12. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) denied that the accused persons were tortured and cash and jewe