ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a) To quash the notice/s both dated 30.12.2024 issued under section 94 of BNSS addressed to Manappuram Finance Limited, the Petitioner herein, by the Respondent No.3, furnished as Annexure-E.

b) Issue direction writ of mandamus or order or direction directing the respondent police 3 not to proceed with the notice date 30.12.2024 and furnished as Annexure-E.

c) Pass an order thereby directing that during the pendency of this present petition, the Respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner are not to interfere in the day to day business of the petitioner in its premises office of Mannapuram Finance Limited, Manappuram Finance Limited, Garbavipalaya Raj Arcade, 7^th Main, 1^st Floor, Near Manasa Nursing Home, Hongasandara Road, Garbavipalya, Bangalore Dt., K.A.Pin 560068 and or at other places where the petitioners’ employees are working.

d) Any grant such other relief or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit the facts and circumstances of case.

2. Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondents No.1 to 3.

3. The order being challenged is a notice issued by respondent No.3 to make available certain gold articles said to be in the custody of the Petitioner which are claimed to have been stolen and pledged with the petitioner.

4. Sri.Poorna Prasad.K.R., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would co- operate with the investigation but would have to retain the gold which had been pledged with the petitioner since the petitioner has a right over the same being a Pledgee/pawnee.

5. He submits that there is a right vested with the petitioner on account of the pledge of the said gold as a security and that security cannot be taken away on the ground that the gold is stolen, the ownership of the gold would have to be established by the person claiming it by way of an appropriately instituted civil suit.

6. Having considered the above submission and having perused the papers, I’am of the considered opinion that the petitioner being only a pledgee/ pawnee would have a only right that the pledgers/pawner has in the said gold and the petitioner cannot claim any right more than that.

7. During investigation, the Investigating Officer would be required to ascertain various aspects including the ownership of the said gold and it is for the Court seized of the matter to decide as to in whose favour the gold has to be returned, if an application under Section 454 of the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure and now Section 500 of the BNSS were to be filed. Of course, at that time the petitioner can always place its rights and claims before the said Court for being decided. The true owner of the gold cannot be deprived of the use of the gold, merely because the same is pledged with a gold finance company after being stolen from such true owner. The Gold Finance Company is vested with a duty to carry out proper due diligence before accepting the gold as a pledge for a loan disbursed.

8. There are innumerable matters coming up before this court where stolen gold is pledged with a gold finance company. I’am of the considered opinion that this aspect would have to be examined by the concerned authorities and proper guidelines have to be formulated in relation to such pledging of gold, ascertainment of ownership, identity of the person pledging the gold, implication of pledging stolen gold, manner of dealing with such gold when criminal proceedings are taken up etc., etc.,. Therefore, I request the Law Commission, Karnataka to look into this matter and formulate necessary guidelines/rules or the like as deemed fit.

9. In that view of the matter, directing the petitioner to co-operate with the Investigating Officer and make available all the details relating to the pledge as also permit the inspection of the gold, which if required the Investigation Officer can take receipt of and deposit with the Court s