ORDER:

The revision is filed by the petitioner/complainant aggrieved by the orders dated 12.3.2021 in C.F.R.No.102/2021 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa in dismissing the petition with regard to taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC against A4 and A5.

2. The petitioner filed private complaint under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking to forward the same to the Sub Inspector of police, Chinnachowk U/G police station, Kadapa city for registration of the crime and for conducting investigation. On perusal of the record, the Court below has deleted the complaint against A4 and A5 with the following observation:

<…where as the contention of the complainant that A4 and at are in possession of the property knowing the same to be stolen, the said allegation is not believable, as they would have received the same as A1 to a3 had pledged them on the belief that they belong to them. The complainant could not able to prove that A4 and a5 has knowledge that the properties are stolen properties when A1 to A3 were pledging them with them and it is his evidence only that he himself informed through legal notice that the said property belong to him. Further, A4 and A5 can account for the possession of the said ornaments as they were pledged by A1 to A3 for a loan. Thus, this Court is of the view that there are no ingredients of the offence punishable under section 411 IPC against A4 and A5. Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the view that the complainant could able to prove that there are ingredients of the offence punishable under section 379 IPC against A1 to A3, but could not able to prove that there are ingredients of the offence punishable under section 411 IPC against A4 and A5. Point is answered accordingly.=

3. The contention of the learned counsel is that though notices were served on the respondents 2 and 3 they did not choose to make their appearance in this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that it is not in dispute that the stolen properties were in possession of A4 and A5 and the same were pledged by A1 to A3, without verification and the same is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. To support his contention he relied on the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India which reads as follows:

“Verification of the ownership of Gold A reference is invited to DNBS.CC.PD.No266/03.10.01/2011-12 dated March 26, 2012, in which the Reserve Bank has laid down certain fair practices to be adopted by NBFCs lending against the collateral of gold. It was stipulated, inter alia, that NBFCs should have Board approved policies in place to satisfy ownership of the gold jewellery and adequate steps be taken to ensure that the KYC guidelines stipulated by the Reserve Bank are followed and due diligence of the customer undertaken. In this regard, it has been decided that where the gold jewellery pledged by a borrower at any one time or cumulatively on loan outstanding is more than 20 grams, NBFCs must keep record of the verification of the ownership of the jewellery. The method of establishing ownership should be laid down as a Board approved policy.=

And has also placed reliance on the transactions made by A1, A2 & A3 to A4 and A5 on different dates. On perusal of the said documents, in view of the specific guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the observations of the Court below are not satisfactory and this Court inclined to interfere with the order of the Court below.

5. Accordingly, the revision case is allowed and the orders dated 12.3.2021 in C.F.R.No.102/2021 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa in dismissing the petition with regard to taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC against A4 and A5, are set aside. The Court below is directed to take cognizance against the respondent nos.2 and 3/