The central legal point established is the interpretation and application of Sections 451 and 452 of Cr.P.C. in balancing the interests of property owners and the prosecution during trial.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the order in Crl.M.P.No.1545 of 2023, dated 30.03.2023 in C.C.No.69 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur and set aside the same in consequences thereof return the jewels weighing 4 Kg 312 grams and Rs.61,10,000/- (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs and Ten Thousand only) recovered from the accused to the revision petitioner.)

1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No. 1545 of 2023 in C.C.No.69 of 2016, dated 30.03.2023, in dismissing the petition filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the revision petitioner, F.I.R., came to be registered in Cr.No.242 of 2014 for the alleged theft committed in the City Union Bank, Kulathur branch, under Sections 457, 380 r/w 411 I.P.C. The respondnet, during the investigation, arrested the accused persons and recovered the looted jewels and also cash from them. When the above said case properties were produced before the jurisdictional court, the same were received and remaned in R.P.Nos.101 of 2015, 117 of 2015, 6 of 2016 and 13 of 2016 and the amount recovered was ordered to be deposited in the Indian Overseas Bank, Keeranur Branch and the same is available in the said Bank. After the completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed and the case was taken on file in C.C.NO.69 of 2016 and the same is pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur. The revision petitioner has filed a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C., seeking interim custody of the case properties in Cr.M.P.No.5912 of 2015 and the learned Magistrate has pased an order dated 01.10.2015 granting interim custody of the jewels. The revision petitioner has field the present petition under Section 415 Cr.P.C., seeking permission to dispose of the jewels already entrusted with the petitioner and to encash the deposited amounts of Rs.60,60,000/- and any other amount recovered from the accused.

3. The respondent police has raised objections stating that the petitioner''s earlier petition for interim custody of the case properties in Cr.M.P.No.3565 of 2018 was ordered to be dismissed on 21.02.2020, that in case if the properties are handed over to the revision petitioner, there is every possibility for transferring the same to third parties, that there is no scope for handing over the case properties permanently to the revision petitioner, that the Branch Manager, who has filed the petition, will be transferred to some other branch and in that situation there is every possibility for violating the Court conditions and that since NBW is pending against the second accused and the case is pending for long time, the revision petitioner is not entitled to get the case properties and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after enquiry, by simply accepting the objections raised by the prosecution, has passed the impugned order dated 30.03.2023 dismissing the petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the revision petitioner/defacto complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.

5. At the outset, it is shocking to notice that the prosecution and the learned Magistrate without going through the records of the case, have mechanically observed that Cr.M.P.No.3965 of 2018 came to be filed by the defacto complainant seeking interim custody of the case properties and that the same was ordered to be dismissed on 21.02.2022. But the learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.5912 of 2015, dated 01.10.2015 and whereunder the learned Magistrate, taking note of no objection stated by the respondent police as well as the accused, has granted interim custody of the jewels remanded in R.P.No.117 of 2015, by imposing some conditions and according to the learned Counsel for the revision