1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C(MD)No.895 of 2011 Dhanuskodi ... Petitioner Vs. The State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Ramnad District. .. Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to modify the order by Modifying the condition imposed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai in Cr.M.P.No.1923 of 2011 dated 14.09.2011 to the effect that the petitioner should execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,12,000/- together with two sureties for the like sum. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent. 2.The Criminal Revision has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 14.09.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.1923 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai. 3.It is seen that the Cr.M.P.No.1923 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner herein seeking return of the jewels worth about Rs.5,12,000/-. 4.As contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the criminal case is pending before the Court below and the jewels are needed for marking them as material objects. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court below ordered to return the jewels to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond furnished security worth about Rs.5,12,000/- to execute bond for the aforesaid amount, each and also directing the petitioner to produce the certificate identifying the sureties by an Officer not less then the cadre of Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar. 5.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed by the Court below is onerous and that the condition may be modified directing the petitioner to furnish security for the aforesaid amount with one surety. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that getting certificate from the Revenue Officer not below the cadre of Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar is highly onerous. The petitioner is not in a position to get certificate from the Tahsildar in a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 normal circumstance. 6.It is not in dispute that the criminal case in Crime No.178 of 2010, on the file of the respondent police under Section 454, 457 and 380 of IPC is pending against the accused therein. In the aforesaid circumstances, the ownership of the jewels has to be established before the trial Court as per procedure known to law and further the petitioner should return the jewels for the purpose of marking the same. Hence, the petitioner has to produce the same, as and when required by the Court below and therefore, considering the value of the jewels, it would be unreasonable to impose condition that the petitioner should furnish security worth Rs.5,12,000/- with two sureties for a like sum. 7.However, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, directing the petitioner to get identification certificate from an Officer not below the cadre of Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, seems to be a onerous condition. The identity of the petitioner and sureties could be established by producing their containing their photo identity, such as ration card, voter identity card and other public documents, like driving licence or any other certificate or identity card issued by any authority to meet the ends of justice. Hence, so far as the identity certificate is concerned the order passed by the Court below is modified as stated above. It is open to the petitioner that the proposed sureties to produce any authenticated document having their photo identity of the persons concerned attested by authority, apart from producing supporting document to show the value of the security being given and the orders modified accordingly. So far as the other conditions imposed by the court below is concerned, they are confirmed. 8. With the above said observation, this criminal revision is allowed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( AS ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR am To 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Ramnad District. 2.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai. 1CC TO MR. D. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE,S R: 39145: DM::2011:NOVEMBER:12:: Crl.R.C(MD)No.895 of 2011 11.11.2011 2P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/