High Court · 2025

CRL RC(MD)Nos.953 and 1035 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 29.08.2025PRONOUNCED ON : 15.10.2025CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRICRL RC(MD)Nos.953 and 1035 of 2025CRL RC(MD)No.953 of 2025:A.Balakrishnan... Petitioner / Petitioner /De-facto ComplainantVs.State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by, the Inspector of Police,Ottakkadai Police Station,Madurai.(Crime No.91/2025) ...Respondent /Respondent /ComplainantPRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the order in Crl.M.P.No.1127 of 2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, dated 23.07.2025.For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.NarayanakumarFor Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.953 and 1035 of 2025CRL RC(MD)No.1035 of 2025:Guruganesh,S/o.Nagarajan,Regional Manager,Best Money Gold Jewellary Pvt. Ltd.,Vilupuram-624 212. ... Petitioner / Petitioner Vs.State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by, the Inspector of Police,Ottakkadai Police Station,Madurai. ...Respondent /RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to set aside the order dated 23.07.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.1173 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition and directing the respondent to return the seized property to the petitioner.For Petitioner : Mr.R.VigneshFor Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)COMMON ORDERThese Criminal Revision Cases are directed against the common order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, in Criminal M.P. No.1127 of 2025 and Criminal M.P. No.1173 of 2025 in Crime No.91 of 2025. The revision petitioner in CRL RC(MD)No.953 of 2025 is the de facto complainant and the petitioner in Criminal M.P. No.1127 of 2025.2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.953 and 1035 of 20252. Facts of the Case:The petitioner / de facto complainant, an advocate by profession and a resident of Nagercoil, had been living in his own house for the past five years. While he was away on a vacation trip to Munnar, he received a message on 31.03.2025 in his residential WhatsApp group about thefts in his area. Upon immediate inquiry, he discovered that his house had also been broken into. On rushing back, he found that 38.5 sovereigns of gold jewels, Rs.1,05,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Five Thousand only) in cash, and other silver articles had been stolen. On his complaint, Crime No.91 of 2025 was registered on 14.03.2025 for offences under Sections 331, 314, and 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During investigation, the police unearthed the involvement of three accused persons Sudagar, Aravind, and Anandaraj, who were arrested in connection with another case in Crime No.224 of 2025. Based on their confessions, the police recovered: A seven-sovereign gold chain, A five-sovereign gold chain, and silver articles from A1 Sudagar’s house, 12 sovereigns of gold jewels from the pawnbroker Palani at Thiruvannamalai, and 102 grams of gold jewels sold by A1 to Best Money Gold Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., which were later converted into gold bar and voluntarily surrendered by the said company to the police. All these properties were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate and taken on file in RPR No.118 of 2025.3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.953 and 1035 of 20253. Proceedings Before the Trial Court:Two petitions came to be filed:Crl.M.P. No.1127 of 2025 by the de facto complainant/petitioner seeking interim custody of the gold, silver ornaments, and articles recovered, under Sections 497 and 53 of BNSS, 2023. Crl.M.P. No.1173 of 2025 by Best Money Gold Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. seeking interim custody of 102 grams of gold jewels, asserting itself as a bonafide purchaser from one Chinnathurai.The learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed both petitions by a common order, holding that Best Money Gold had no locus standi since they had voluntarily surrendered the property, and further observing that the de facto complainant could not identify the gold biscuits/bar as his property.4. Submissions:(a) Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner:Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that:The Trial Court failed to follow the settled procedure under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. (now corresponding provisions in BNSS, 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.953 and 1035 of 20252023). Reliance was placed on Suresh Chandra v. Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station, Ariyalur District1. The purpose of Section 451 Cr.P.C. is to avoid the deterioration of property by directing return of the same to the rightful owner after due safeguards. The form of the property whether jewels or gold biscuits cannot deprive the owner of interim custody. The rightful owner’s interest can be protected by: taking photographs, preparing mahazar, and attestation by the Investigating Officer, accused, and the de facto complainant. Reliance was placed on Jyothi v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Tharamangalam Police Station, Salem District2, and B. Loganathan v. Inspector of Police, Lalapettai Police Station, Kulithalai, to emphasise that photographs of ingots or biscuits can serve as secondary evidence during trial. It was argued that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition and that the petitioner, being the rightful owner, is entitled to interim custody.(b) Submissions on behalf of the State:The learned Government Advocate submitted that:The recovered properties are in the form of gold biscuits and cannot be identified during trial if released. The trial Court rightly held that identification of such property by the complainant is not feasible. 12020 (1) L.W. (Cri) 15822012 (2) MWN (Cr.) 2165/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.953 and 1035 of 2025The prosecution has filed a final report, which has been taken on file as C.C. No.622 of 2025, and the case is now posted for appearance of the accused. Hence, releasing the property at this stage may prejudice the trial.5. Analysis:5.1. The primary issue is whether the de facto complainant, admittedly the victim of the theft, is entitled to interim custody of the recovered property, notwithstanding the transformation of some jewels into gold biscuits. The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat3 emphasised that the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously and expeditiously to prevent loss and ensure the owner is not prejudiced by the property lying idle in police custody. The Court observed that seized properties should not be allowed to deteriorate, and photographs and mahazar can serve as sufficient secondary evidence during trial. The judgments of this Court in Jyothi (2012) and Loganathan (2016) reaffirm this principle, specifically holding that even when gold ingots or biscuits are recovered, photographs and due documentation suffice to preserve the evidentiary value.3(2003) 12 SCC 3626/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.953 and 1035 of 20255.2. In the present case, the trial Court’s reasoning that gold biscuits cannot be identified and therefore cannot be returned runs contrary to the above precedents. The doctrine of identification cannot be applied in such a rigid manner so as to defeat the complainant’s rightful claim to custody. The procedure of: photographing the property, preparing proper documentation, and securing acknowledgments from the accused, complainant, and Investigating Officer, provides adequate safeguard to ensure the trial is not prejudiced. As regards the claim of Best Money Gold Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., the trial Court rightly held that the company had no locus standi, since it voluntarily surrendered the property after admitting receipt of stolen gold. Purchasing stolen goods, even under an ostensible KYC procedure, cannot clothe the purchaser with legal title. Hence, the dismissal of their petition is justified. However, the dismissal of the de facto complainant’s petition is unsustainable. The trial Court overlooked the ratio in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and subsequent precedents.6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision petitioner in CRL RC(MD)No.953 of 2025, being the de facto complainant and rightful owner of the stolen property, is entitled to interim custody of the recovered gold, silver 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.953 and 1035 of 2025ornaments, and articles, subject to appropriate safeguards.7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case in CRL RC(MD)No.953 of 2023 is allowed. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, dated 23.07.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.1127 of 2025 is set aside insofar as it relates to dismissal of the petitioner’s claim. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, is directed to release the recovered property to the de facto complainant/revision petitioner after: Preparing a detailed mahazar and inventory, Taking photographs of the articles, Obtaining signatures of the Investigating Officer, the accused, and the complainant, and Imposing necessary conditions to ensure production of the property as and when required during trial. 8. As far as the Best Money Gold Jewellary Pvt Ltd., is concerned, since the concerned gold was voluntarily surrendered by the said company, the criminal revision case filed by the said company, i.e., CRL RC(MD)No.1035 of 2025 is dismissed. No costs.15.10.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : YesSml8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.953 and 1035 of 2025To1.The Judicial Magistrate, Melur.2.The Inspector of Police, Ottakkadai Police Station, Madurai.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.953 and 1035 of 2025L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J., Sml CRL RC(MD)Nos.953 and 1035 of 2025 15.10.202510/10