High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C(MD)No.1105 of 2024BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on: 09.12.2024Pronounced on: 13.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAICrl.R.C(MD)No.1105 of 2024R.Rajmohan ... PetitionerVs.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Vadipatti Police Station,Madurai District.(Crime No.186 of 2024) ... Respondent PRAYER : This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records relating to the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.2647 of 2024, dated 18.09.2024 filed by the petitioner under Sections 457 and 451 of Cr.PC., 1973/ U/s.497 of BNSS, 2023 and set aside the same as illegal and entrust the interim custody of 93.700 grams of gold jewels and cash of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs and ninety thousand only) to the petitioner in a manner known to law by allowing the above Criminal Revision Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh PandianFor Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.side)1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1105 of 2024ORDERThis Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 18.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2647 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti and to set aside the same and to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate to return the seized 93.700 gram gold jewels and cash Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs and ninety thousand only) to the revision petitioner on interim custody.2.The brief facts of the case:The revision petitioner is working as Manager in Aarthi Gold Finance, Madurai and he is the defacto complainant in this case. On 07.06.2024, the decfacto complainant was approached by the Accused No.1/Sathiya Rajeswari for loan of Rs.7,40,000/- to redeem the pledged 148 gram gold jewels from Muthoot Fin Corp, on her request the said amount was paid to the account of Accused No.2/Ramya at the request of Accused No.3/Ganesh Babu. The petitioner insisted for pledging the redeemed jewels, the accused had given 93 grams of gold jewels, which were found gold plated jewels on examination. When the petitioner questioned the same and demanded repayment of money, the accused threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Hence, the petitioner gave a complaint before the respondent police and a case was 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1105 of 2024registered in Crime No.186 of 2024 U/s 420, 406, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. During investigation, cash of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs and ninety thousand only) and 93.70 grams gold plated jewels were recovered from the accused and remanded into Court in RPR.No.236/2024. The petitioner filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.2647 of 2024 U/s.503 and 497 of BNSS, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti, for interim custody of the jewels and cash and the said petition was dismissed.3. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has come forward with this present Criminal Revision Case.4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the Manager of the Aarthi Finance Company, on the basis of complaint lodged by the petitioner, case was registered; the seized amount and jewels belonged to the said finance company, this case is relating to cheating and based on record, mere 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1105 of 2024keeping idle the seized property would not serve any purpose to both prosecution or the petitioner, so the petitioner is present custodian of the jewels and cash. Therefore, the interim custody of the jewels may be granted to the petitioner.6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent has filed a status report of the investigating officer. He would submit that the seized jewels are fabricated and gold plated jewels, they are not original gold jewels, the seized jewels were sent to the Forensic Science Lab for test by producing a copy of the Court’s letter. He would further submit that the properties are very essential to establish the prosecution case and the cash also for the purpose of substantiating the prosecution case. The Investigation is not fully completed and hence objected to return of property.7. On hearing and perusal of records, it is clear that the petitioner is the Manager of Aarthi Finance Company and upon his complaint, the present case has been registered as stated above. There is no dispute in it. The petition mentioned properties cash of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs and ninety thousand only) and 93.700 gram gold jewels were seized by the investigating officer from the accused during the course of 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1105 of 2024investigation. It is strongly opposed by the respondent for return of seized jewels, as they are only fabricated and gold plated jewels, which are very much essential for the purpose of case. This submission of the respondent side has some force. At the same time, the return of the seized cash of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs and ninety thousand only) will not prejudice the prosecution side as it is based on record.8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court issued guidelines in the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case reported in 2003 (1) CTC 175 in respect of return of seized properties by the police. In similar nature of this case, the learned Single Judge passed the order in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.802 of 2023 on 11.10.2023, based on the unreported judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.5254 of 2021 in M/s.PMJ Gems and Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., v. The Inspector of Police, Sankakiri Police Station, Salem District, the petitioner's right to claim the return of recovered cash is no longer res integra. At the same time, since the seized jewels are fabricated and gold plated jewels the petitioner is not entitled to return on interim custody. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow partly this criminal revision subject to conditions. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1105 of 20249. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed, and the order, dated 18.09.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2647 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti in respect of return of cash of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs and ninety thousand only), is hereby set aside. The cash Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs and ninety thousand only) remanded in RPR.No.236/2024 on the file of the trial Court is ordered to be returned to the petitioner on interim custody on the following conditions.(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti.(ii) The learned trial Judge is hereby directed to hand over the entire cash of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Ninety Thousand only) to the petitioner along with accumulated interest from the bank account, in case the amount deposited in fixed deposit. (iii) The petitioner is hereby directed to furnish the bank guarantee for the value of the cash to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1105 of 2024(iv) The petitioner is also directed to file an undertaking affidavit that he is ready to produce aforesaid cash as and when the Courts direct.10. The order, dated 18.09.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2647 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti in respect of gold jewellery is confirmed.13.02.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoVSDTo1.The Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai.2.The The Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.186 of 2024) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C(MD)No.1105 of 2024 P.VADAMALAI, J. VSD Pre - Delivery Order made inCrl.R.C(MD)No.1105 of 202413.02.20258/8