IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.10.2025 Pronounced on: 31.10.2025 Harjinder Singh Garcha ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate and Mr. Jangveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

189 19.09.2023 Sadar Ludhiana 328/457/381/411 r/w 34 IPC

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in CRR-1119-2023 titled as Harjinder Singh Garcha vs. State of Punjab, whereby despite No Objection by the prosecution to release the articles recovered during investigation to the petitioner on superdari, the matter has been remanded back to trial Court for reconsideration, the petitioner has come up before this Court seeking release of recovered articles/cash related to him on superdari.

2. The petitioner in whose house, a massive theft had taken place and consequently on the registration of FIR, the police was able to recover the stolen property, the petitioner had filed an application for its release, but due to objections raised by the police, entire case property was not ordered to be released.

3. The facts of the case necessary to decide the present petition are taken from the copy of the FIR annexed as Annexure P-2.

4. The petitioner claims that on 17th September 2023, he along with his wife went to Jaipur for a family function and in their absence, petitioner’s mother with petitioner’s aunt were in the house with servants. In the morning of the 18^th September 2023, they got a call from their driver about a theft having taken place in their house, and his mother and Aunt were lying unconscious. It was also revealed that their servant Karan was missing.

The police swung into action and nabbed Karan in Delhi along with stolen property.

5. The petitioner applied for the release of the case property and cash before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist class at Ludhiana.

6. Vide order dated 31st October 2023, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, directed the release of the case property mentioned in paragraph 6 of the said order; however, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class declined the request for release of other property/articles. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court by filing the criminal revision petition.

7. Vide order dated 3rd January 2024, the said revision petition was disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate Ist class and passing an order after perusing the objections and the police report.

8. Feeling aggrieved about the total overturning of the order and remand, the petitioner had come up before this Court by filing the present petition on 27th February

2024.

9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would have no objection if, at the time of releasing the case property, a videography is done and an inventory is prepared. He further submits that the petitioner, who is the owner of the stolen property, will give an undertaking that in case any other property is not found to be related to him, he will return the same.

10. The counsel for the state submits that the unidentified case property cannot be given to them; whatever case property has been identified can be given, and as such, there was no error in the orders passed by the District Judiciary.

11. An analysis of the petition and the arguments would lead to the following conclusion.

12. The ends of Justice would suffice if the matter is remanded back to the trial court, only to the extent that the case property, which was ordered to be released by the trial court, i.e. the Judicial Magistrate First Class, shall stand as it is and regarding the remaining property, which was not released afresh, exercise shall be taken by the concerned Judicial Magistrate for its release.

13. The trial Court shall ask the production of articles except those ordered to be released vide order dated