Interim custody of stolen property should be granted expediently under Cr.P.C. Section 451, ensuring proper conditions for its safeguarding pending the trial.

ORDER

The petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.210/2023 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thiruvalla.

2. The petitioner is a jeweller by profession. It appears that at the instance of the 2nd respondent, Crime No.1890/2022 of the Thiruvalla Police station was registered for the offences under Sections 457, 461 and 380 of the IPC. The crux of the allegations in the crime registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent is that in the wee hours of 21.10.2022, some person had broke into her house and committed theft of about 240 sovereigns of gold ornaments, a diamond ring worth about 4 lakhs and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash.

3. In the course of the investigation, the accused was traced out and was arrested on 24.10.2022. Based on the confession statement, about 176 grams of gold were seized from the Venkateshwara Jewellery, Vallavila run by the petitioner. It appears that some of the gold ornaments which were sold to the jewellery shop were melted and turned into gold ingots.

4. The 2nd respondent filed an application before the learned Magistrate under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the gold ornaments and the currency notes. The learned Magistrate after hearing the contentions advanced, decided to grant interim custody of the gold as well as cash to the 2nd respondent. The aforesaid order was passed on 04.01.2023.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned Magistrate and filed an application under Section 451 seeking interim custody of the currency notes. The learned Magistrate perused the recovery mahazar and noted that it was on the basis of the confession statement of the accused that a sum of Rs.8,95,000/- was recovered from his house. As the said cash was the value of the gold ornaments sold to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the application.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the jewelry and if the order passed by the learned Magistrate is allowed to stand, it would only result in double enrichment of the party respondent. It is pointed out that about 176 sovereigns of gold ornaments were seized, and proceeds by way of cash were also recovered from the accused. It is submitted by referring to Annexure A4 Mahazar that without considering the above relevant aspects, the learned Magistrate has passed the order.

7. The contention of the learned counsel was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent. According to the learned counsel, what was seized from the jewelry shop of the petitioner was only 183.65 sovereigns of gold. The diamond ring worth about 4 lakhs and the cash of 1 lakh were not seized. According to the learned counsel, only interim custody of the cash was handed over, and that was subject to conditions. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner had purchased the stolen gold from the accused, and in that view of the matter, his prayer for the release of the cash was rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate had considered all relevant facts while passing the impugned order.

9. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. I find from the sequence of events that a substantial amount of gold ornaments were stolen from the house of the 2nd respondent, and a portion of the same was recovered from the jewelry shop of the petitioner based on the confession statement of the alleged accused. Some amount of cash was seized from the accused, which allegedly is the proceeds of the crime. The learned Magistrate has allowed the application filed by the 2nd respondent and has granted interim custody to her. The q