Judicial authority must provide reasons for denying custody of funds, emphasizing the need for reconsideration of claims in criminal proceedings.

ORDER

The petitioner bank is the de facto complainant in Crime No. 1084/2020 registered by the Harippad Police Station, Alappuzha, as against three accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 457 , 461 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code . The petitioner had filed an application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class – II, (‘Trial Court’ for short) Harippad, stating that the accused persons has committed theft of the gold ornaments and money that were kept in the strong room of the bank. The gold ornaments belong to the customers of the bank, and the money belongs to the bank. Therefore, the gold ornaments and money may be released to the petitioner on interim custody. Although the Investigating Officer filed a report stating that the accused 1 to 3 had committed theft of the petitioner’s gold ornaments and the money, by the impugned Annexure 3 order, the learned magistrate has directed only the gold ornaments to be released to the petitioner on interim custody and has directed the money to be kept in safe custody in the treasury until further orders. The Trial Court has not given any reason for rejecting the petitioner's prayer in the Annexure 2 application for return of money. Moreover, there is no rival claimant for the money. Therefore, declining interim custody of the money to the petitioner and ordering it to be kept in the treasury are ex-facie and liable to be set aside. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.

3. The specific allegation of the prosecution is that the accused persons had committed theft of gold ornaments and Rs.3.5 lakhs from the petitioner bank. The investigating officer has filed a report endorsing the petitioner's case. Although the petitioner prayed for granting interim custody of both the gold ornaments and the money, the learned Magistrate has only partly allowed the application by granting interim custody of the gold ornaments and ordered the money to be deposited in the treasury.

4. A bare reading of the Annexure 3 order substantiates that the learned Magistrate has failed to state any reason to reject the petitioner’s application for release of money, which is unsustainable in law. Thus, I am of the definite view that the learned Magistrate is to be directed to reconsider the application with respect to the petitioner’s claim for interim custody of the money. Hence, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C, by setting aside the direction in the Annexure 3 order that money is to be kept in safe custody of the treasury, and directing the learned Magistrate to reconsider the Annexure 2 application with respect to the petitioner’s claim for the interim custody of the money. The learned Magistrate is directed to reconsider the Annexure 2 application in accordance with law, and in any event, within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order.

Sd/-