IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2022

Chandar

... Petitioner/Defacto

Complainant

Vs

State Rep by the SHO,

D.C.B. P.S., Cuddalore,

Cr.No.25 of 2020

C.P.No.260 of 2020 and C.P.No.39 of 2021

U/s.419, 420 of IPC

... Respondent/ Complainant

PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397

and 401 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and set aside

the order dated 23.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.452 of 2021 in

Cr.No.25 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Cuddalore and direct the respondent to return the seized cash, a

sum of Rs.9,10,000/- and thus allow this Criminal Revision.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.P.Anantha Krishna

For Respondent :

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

Aggrieved over the order dated 23.10.2021 made in

Crl.M.P.No.452 of 2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.II, Cuddalore, the petitioner, who is the defacto complainant

in Crime No.25 of 2020 on the file of the D.C.B. Police Station,

Cuddalore has preferred this Criminal Revision, wherein, he

prayed to return the cash i.e. a sum of Rs.9,10,000/-, which was

recovered in the above crime number.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner

runs a pawn shop. The accused, Janagiraman sought money under

the pretext that his jewels were pledged with the ICICI Bank and

the jewels can be kept by the petitioner till repayment is done

by the accused. The value of the jewels were more than the

amount sought for by the accused. Accordingly, induced by the

accused, the petitioner on 06.11.2020 personally visited and

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

deposited Rs.18,00,000/- in OT ICICI Bank, Cuddalore in favour

of Account No.269901505346 and the remaining amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- in HDFC, Vallivilas Hospital Branch in favour of

Account No.50100377622608 on the same day. After depositing the

money, the petitioner and the accused went to eat nearby from

where the accused escaped without handing over the jewels as

promised to the petitioner. Immediately upon the complaint given

by the petitioner herein, the respondent police registered the

above case in Crime No.25 of 2020 against the accused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

that after recovering a cash i.e. a sum of Rs.9,10,000/- from

the accused, the respondent police handed over the same before

the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore as case

property and the same was received by the Judicial Magistrate in

C.P.No.260 of 2020 and C.P.No.39 of 2021. Later, the petitioner

filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.452 of 2021 under Section 451 of

Cr.P.C., wherein, he prayed to hand over the said cash for

interim custody. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Cuddalore after observing that if these properties are returned

to the petitioner for interim custody, it would affect the trial

and it would cause hurdle in marking the recovered amount as

material object and ultimately dismissed the petition. Hence,

the petitioner is before this Court with this Criminal Revision

Petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondent police fairly admits that the property now in the

hands of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore is belongs to

the petitioner and he is the absolute owner to the said

property.

5. The submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing on either side are considered.

6. Though it was contended on the side of prosecution

that if the property is returned to the petitioner for interim

custody, it could create a hurdle during the time of trial,

being the reason that the money is for circulation, it cannot be

kept in a custody. In this regard, in the judgment rendered by

the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, it was

held as follows:

“12. For t