The main legal point established is the need to release valuable articles from police custody at the earliest, as emphasized by the Supreme Court.

L. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) INFORMANT is the petitioner before this Court challenging the order dated 7-4-2003 passed by the learned S. D. J. M. Jharsuguda in G. R. Case No. 1084 of 2002 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for release of certain gold ornaments as well as cash under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) CASE of the petitioner is that he is the authorised agent of M/s. Rohit Jewellers, mumbai dealing with manufacturing and sale of gold ornaments. In view of orders received from different jewellers the same were being supplied through the present petitioner. On the date of occurrence the petitioner being deputed by said M/s. Rohit jewellers to supply ornaments to different jewellers in Orissa was moving from jharsuguda to Bargarh in a bus. It is alleged that the accused persons on false pretext took him in a motor cycle with intention to commit robbery, as a result of which the petitioner raised hullah. Hearing his shout police rescued him and recovered gold ornaments as well as cash which had been taken away by the accused persons and seized the same. On the basis of such allegation, a case was registered. The petitioner field an application under Section 457, cr. P. C. stating that as he was the custodian in possession of the seized gold ornaments as well as cash belonging to his employer m/s. Rohit Jewellers and after seizure the same are in custody of Jharsuguda police. A prayer was made for release of the gold ornaments as well as cash in his favour. Objection was field by the A. P. P. stating that the said articles were seized from the accused persons while they were running away snatching from the petitioner and there being no document to show that he is the authorised agent of M/s. Rohit Jewellers or that he was carrying the ornaments and cash for supplying the same to different jewellers on behalf of M/s. Rohit Jewellers, articles seized should not be released in favour of the petitioner. Learned Magistrate in the impugned order rejected the petition by disbelieving the authorization letter which was produced before the Court at a later stage.

( 3 ) SHRI Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute that the ornaments were snatched away from the petitioner by the accused persons and they were caught by the police and the petitioner was rescued. Therefore, at the time of occurrence the petitioner was in possession of the said

ornaments. According to sri Mishra even accepting the finding of the learned Magistrate that the authorisation certificate issued by M/s. Rohit Jewellers in favour of the petitioner is not accepted, the articles having been seized from the accused persons who had snatched the same from the petitioner, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner was in possession of the said articles at the time of commission of the offence. Since this is admitted case of the prosecution , there is no reason for the learned Magistrate to reject the prayer.

( 4 ) FROM the prosecution case itself it appears that the gold ornaments and cash which were being carried by the petitioner had been snatched away by the persons and the same were recovered from the accused persons immediately after the occurrence and therefore there cannot be any dispute about the fact that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was in possession of gold ornaments as well as cash. Now the question that arises for consideration as to whether the same should be released in favour of the petitioner or not. In the case of sunderbhai Amabala Desai v. State of gujarat, reported in (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444 : (AIR 2003 SC 638 ). The Apex Court while dealing with Section 457 of the Cr. P. C. in respect of valuable articles and currency notes observed as follows :"with regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our