The rightful ownership of seized items takes precedence in criminal proceedings, affirming that property linked to criminal activity can be returned to its legal possessor under proper procedures.

O R D E R

This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as per which the gold ornaments which were procured by the Investigating Officer were ordered to be released to the second respondent. The second respondent filed a complaint before the Court below on 13.6.2011, alleging theft of 1.25 kilograms of gold ornaments and 25 kilograms of silver vessels. The allegation was made against one Damodaran, the husband of their former servant Chitra and against another lady Smt.Bindu Balan. Based on that complaint crime was registered by Kadavanthra Police Station. During investigation, detailed statement of the second respondent was taken. The accused Damodaran was arrested on 13.6.2011 from Kadavanthra. His statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.

2. Smt. Bindhu Balan, the other accused was arrested by Vanitha Sub Inspector on 13.6.2011 at 7.30 PM. It is stated that based on the disclosure statement given by the accused Bindhu Balan, the police went along with her to Kalpetta as led by her. The police went to the non financial institution, the petitioner herein. It was revealed that the gold ornaments, mentioned in the complaint of the second respondent were pledged by the first accused, Smt.Bindhu Balan, for Rs.21,44,300/-. Those gold ornaments were thus seized as per the mahazar. It is stated that, thereafter, both accused were produced before Court. As sought for by the police, custody was given by the Court for interrogation. It was stated that the seized items were identified by the second respondent, the defacto complainant. It was already stated that silver ingot weighing 9.800 kilograms was also seized by the Investigating Officer.

3. When the second respondent filed a petition under section 451 Cr.P.C., the Court below ordered release of all the items mentioned in the petition to be released to the second respondent on executing a kychit for Rs.25,00,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount. Further a condition was imposed that the second respondent shall not alter the shape of the articles and she shall produce those articles before the Court as and when directed. That Order was passed on 7.7.2011 in Cr.M.P. No: 2136/2011.

4. The petitioner herein, thereafter filed a petition before the Court below for releasing those articles stating that those articles were pledged by the second accused. It was stated that she used to pledge gold ornaments earlier also and those gold ornaments were returned to her upon prompt payment of the loan amount. According to the petitioner herein, from March 2010, the second accused Smt. Bindhu Balan was a customer of the petitioner Company and only because she was familiar to the petitioner Company the gold was permitted to be pledged. According to the petitioner five pledges were made on 21.12.2010. The Crime No:942/2011 was registered by Kadavanthara Police on 13.6.2011. It is not disputed that the police seized those gold ornaments from the petitioner's establishment.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the gold ornaments were seized from the petitioner, before ordering release of the same to the defacto complainant (the second respondent herein) notice should have been given to the petitioner but no notice was given.

6. The learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that it was based upon the complaint filed by the second respondent in June, 2011, the crime was registered and the two accused were arrested. It was based on her (A2's) disclosure statement the gold ornaments were seized. The fact that the person who committed theft of the gold ornaments pledged the same to a particular person or financial institution is no reason to say that whenever an application is filed for release of such articles, the person from whom stolen articles were recovered should also be made a party. The further fact that the petitioner moved the learned Magistrate about six