1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.156 of 2011 and Crl.O.P.(M).No.15071 of 2010 K.Deivanayagam ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.156/2011 Saravanan ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15071/2010 Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Crime No.150 of 2009, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent in Crl.R.C.No.156/2011 1. The District Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari. 2. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3. The Branch Manager, Co-operative Urban Bank, Kovilpatti. 4. The Branch Manager, Pandyan Grama Bank, Pandyan Nagar, Kovilpatti. 5. The Branch Manager, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Manthithoppu, Kovilpatti. ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.15071/2010 Prayer in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.156/2011: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District wherein he has dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner (Branch Manager) for under Sections 190(1) and 295 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.4092 of 2010 dated 24.11.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15071/2010: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for a direction to the second respondent, the Inspector of Police, CCB, Nagercoil to take appropriate further steps according to law for the recovery and seizure of the petitioner's stolen gold ornaments weighing 274.300 grams in connection with the Crime No.150 of 2009, CCB, Nagercoil Police Station from the custody of the third, fourth and fifth respondent's Banks and to brought the same to the custody of the police and then to Court. For Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.156/2011 : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior counsel for Mr.Prabhu For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15071/2010 : M/s. T.Joseph Jeyakumar For R1 and R2 : Mr.P.Rajendran, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) For R3 : M/s. S.Ponsenthil Kumaran For R4 : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior counsel for Mr.Prabhu For R5 : M/s. R.Anand C O M M O N O R D E R Since the issues involved in the revision and the original petition are common, both matters are disposed of by this common order. Crl.R.C.(MD).No.156 of 2011 2. The facts of the case would disclose that one Saravanan has given a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District stating that at about 22.30 hours, on 16.04.2009 at Vadasery bus stand, gold jewels weighing about 329 grams and cash of Rs.1,66,500/- have been stolen. 3. On 05.11.2009 at about 2.30 a.m., in front of Kottar railway station, the accused were arrested by the respondent police and one of the accused viz., Chinnamari has given a confession statement, she pledged the stolen jewels to the petitioner's Bank viz., Pandyan Grama Bank, Bharathi Nagar Branch, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District and got a loan through her husband Karuppasamy. The Investigating Officer viz., the respondent herein has sent a letter dated 11.11.2009, to the Branch Manager of Pandyan Grama Bank, Bharathi Nagar Branch questioning him to hand over the jewels for the purpose of investigation and identification. Since no response was forthcoming, the reminder dated 16.06.2010 was sent by the respondent, calling upon the Bank to hand over the jewels for the purpose of investigation, failing which, the prosecution will be initiated under Sections 411 and 414 of I.P.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 4. Thereafter, the Bank had sent a letter to the respondent police and also to his higher officials stating their inability to produce the jewels as the said Bank is jointly owned by Indian Overseas Bank and it is also governed by the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976. 5. Subsequently, the Bank filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.4092 of 2010 with a prayer that the Bank Manager is ready to produce the jewels before the jurisdictional Court and the Investigating Officer has also filed an appropriate application before the said Court can take back the jewels. The said petition was dismissed on 24.11.2010 and challenging the vires of the same, the present revision is filed. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15071 of 2010 6. This criminal original petition is filed by the de-facto complainant in Crime No.150 of 2009 praying for appropriate direction directing the second respondent therein viz., the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District to seize and recover his stolen gold ornaments weighing 274.300 grams in connection with the above said crime number from the custody of respondents 3, 4 and 5 therein and the petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.156 of 2011 is arrayed as the fourth respondent. 7. In the said original petition, the second respondent viz., the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District has filed a status report stating among other things that as per the confession statement given by the arrested accused viz., A1 to A3, four jewel loans card given by the Bank were seized from the house of accused No.3 and also other Bank loan card was seized from the house of accused No.1 in the presence of witnesses. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer became aware that the accused had hypothecated the stolen property at Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Kovilpatti, Co- operative Urban Bank, Kovilpatti and Pandyan Grama Bank/Revision petitioner and accordingly, summons were sent to them under Sections 91 and 160(i) of Cr.P.C., calling upon them to produce the properties on or before 21.06.2010. The Pandyan Grama Bank response to the letter sent a reply that stating their inability to produce the jewels without the Court order and the petition filed by them in that regard, was dismissed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District on 24.11.2010. 8. Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2011 would submit that the persons, who actually involved in the commission of the offences are yet to be arrayed as accused and in the event of handing over jewels to the Investigating Officer, the possibility of getting back the jewels is very remote and based on the pledge of the jewels only, the loan was advanced to the concerned accused and in the event of default, it will be extremely difficult for the revision petitioner/Bank to recover the loan and hence, he prayed for allowing of this revision. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15071 of 2010 would submit that for the purpose of proper and effective investigation, seizure of the jewels is absolutely necessary and therefore, prayed for appropriate direction directing the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil to seize the jewels and complete the investigation. 10. The Court carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 11. Chapter - XXX of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders deals with the investigation and it is relevant to extract PSO 569. "PSO 569. Mahazars - Recovery of Stolen property otherwise than on house search - Record of material facts (1) When any property is recovered by a Police Officer otherwise than on formal search of premises, a contemporaneous record of the facts relating to such recovery may be prepared by him in Form No.86 prescribed by Order No.679 and may be attested by witnesses present at the time of such recovery. The record so made is admissible in evidence to corroborate the testimony of the Police Officer who prepared it or may be used to refresh his memory. The signatures of the attesting witnesses may be used in evidence only to corroborate the statement of the Police Officer that they were present at the time of the recovery of the property and attested the record prepared by him. Statements which read as statements of person other than the Police Officer who prepares the record should not be entered therein. The record should reach the Magistrate with the least possible delay. (2) When material facts which may be of value as evidence are observed by an Investigating Officer at the scene of the offence or at any other place, he shall draw up in the presence of witnesses (who, wherever possible, should be respectable inhabitants of the locality) present at the time when such facts are observed, a record of the facts, illustrated if necessary by a rough plan. The witnesses, may sign the record after its contents have been read over and carefully explained to them. They may afterwards be cited in Court to prove the facts observed by them. (3) Whenever Mahazars are prepared by the Investigating Officers for the recovery of blood - stained clothes from accused persons, an attempt should be made invariably to give an account of the dimensions of the stains to enable the court to have an idea whether the blood - stains were due to any other cause or due to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 wearer having taken part in the assault involving the shedding of blood. It will be sufficient if an approximate estimate of the dimensions of blood-stains are mentioned in the Mahazars, if exact measurements cannot be given." 12. Since the offences alleged against the accused are very serious in nature viz., theft of jewels and stolen of cash, for the purpose of effective investigation, the recovery of the articles are absolutely necessary. Only for that purpose, the Central Crime Branch, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil had called upon the revision petitioner to produce the jewels for the purpose of investigation. Though it is contended by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that some of the real accused have not been arrayed as an accused, this Court is of the considered view that since the investigation is in the preliminary stage, the possibility of arraying some more persons as accused cannot be ruled out. Moreover, sufficient protection is given to the Bank as well as to the de-facto complainant in the form of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the seized articles. 13. Unless and until the custody of the jewels are handed over to the respondent police for investigation, no effective investigation can be done, which ultimately delay in filing the final report. Hence, this Court finds no merits in the case projected by the revision petitioner and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. 14. The respondent police on receipt of the jewels, is directed to expedite the investigation and file final report as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. This criminal original petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3. The District Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari. 4. The Branch Manager, Co-operative Urban Bank, Kovilpatti. 5. The Branch Manager, Pandyan Grama Bank, Pandyan Nagar, Kovilpatti. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 6. The Branch Manager, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Manthithoppu, Kovilpatti. 7. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.T.Joseph jeyakumar, Advocate, Sr.No. 7296 akv ssk/01.04.2011 /9c -6p/- Crl.R.C.(MD)No.156 of 2011 and Crl.O.P.(M).No.15071 of 2010 21.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/