Ownership must be established to release seized property, particularly when serious criminal allegations are present.

ORDER

The petitioner, the 2nd accused in Crime No.911/2021 of Cherpu Police Station, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Thrissur, in Crl.M.P. No.2237/2022. As per the said order, the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. to release the gold ornaments having a quantity of 322.43 grams was dismissed.

Challenging the same, this Crl.M.C. is filed.

2. Heard Sri.V.John Sebastian Ralph, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The crime which is the subject matter of this case was registered against the petitioner and another for various offences, including the one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, along with the 1st accused, who was her lover, committed the murder of her husband on 12.12.2021 while he was sleeping in his room on upstairs of the house. The murder was allegedly committed by striking with an iron rod on his head, and the body was concealed in the bathroom. During the course of the investigation, from the scene of occurrence, the gold ornaments, which are the subject matter of the case have been recovered. The application for releasing the same was submitted in such circumstances.

4. The learned Magistrate, after considering all the relevant aspects, dismissed the said application. From the contents of the impugned order, it can be seen that the order of dismissal was passed by the learned Magistrate mainly because the petitioner could not establish her right over the gold ornaments by producing the materials or documents substantiating the same. It is discernible that the prosecution has a specific case that the aforesaid gold ornaments were kept by the deceased for purchasing some landed property. It is also evident that the articles were seized from the place of occurrence, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate the title of the petitioner over the articles. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon theSunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [ 2003(2) KLT 1089 ] and Suresh Serve v. State of Kerala [ 2020 (3) KLT 395 ] to substantiate their contentions. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that the above referred decisions relied on by the petitioner, are in respect of the necessity to pass appropriate orders releasing the valuables seized by the Police as part of the investigation to the persons who are eligible and competent to retain the same until the trial is completed. The principles laid down in the said decisions would not preclude the courts concerned from entering into a prima facie finding as to the title or ownership over the articles in question for the limited purpose of entrusting the custody of the same with such persons. While releasing the articles to a person during the crime stage, the court should be satisfied that they are capable of retaining the articles during the period of the trial so as to enable the court to pass appropriate orders under Section 452 of Cr.P.C, after the trial is over. When the claim put forward by the petitioner in this case is considered in the light of the above, I am of the view that the findings of the learned Magistrate are reasonable and proper. This is mainly because, the petitioner, though claimed to be the owner of the aforesaid property, could not produce any materials to substantiate her rights.

5. Moreover, the allegations against the petitioner are grave, and it is for committing the murder of her husband. The question here is whether the actual owner was the petitioner or the deceased. As far as the prosecution is concerned, they have a definite case that the articles belonged to the deceased. Considering the fact that an adjudication on the question of title may not be possible at this stage, I am of the view that the release of the articles in favour of the petitioner cannot be permitted.

In such circ