IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4035 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.3513/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALEXANDER, MANAGER, MUTHOOT FINANCE CORPORATION, S/O.THANKACHAN,M JOSE VILASOM, KIZHAKKEKKARA, NARIKKAL CHERRY, KARAVALLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN SMT.LIGEY ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTATRAKKARA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4035 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner's application for release of gold ornaments seized was rejected by the learned Magistrate and his application under Section 451 Cr.P.C was dismissed. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the same. He prays that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the impugned order. 2. The complainant is the owner of a jewellery. Accused persons are its manager and employees. It is alleged that gold ornaments in the jewellery were stealthily removed by the manager and the employees in collusion. Crime was registered. Investigation was conducted. In the course of investigation, accused were arrested and on the basis of the confession statement of an accused large quantity of gold ornaments which were in the possession of the petitioner was recovered. The articles were produced in court. The complainant asserts that the gold ornaments belong to him and by the theft committed by the accused his title over the ornaments is not lost in any manner. According to the petitioner, the transaction was bona fide. He is a money lender. He has received the ornaments as security and has advanced money. The transaction by him is bona fide. He has a lien over the gold ornaments. They may be released to the petitioner, it is prayed. Crl.M.C. No.4035 of 2008 2 3. The learned Magistrate did not accept the said request and the application was rejected. The counsel submits that he being a person who had entered into a bona fide transaction, the ornaments must have been released to him. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and I find merit in the opposition. I am unable to agree that the petitioner is entitled to keep possession of the articles. The controversy has to be finally resolved to decide whether the person who allegedly pledged the gold ornament before the petitioner had title to the property as to confer any lien on the petitioner against the real owner of the property. That complicated question cannot obviously be resolved at this stage and the decision taken by the learned Magistrate does appear to me to be absolutely fair, just and reasonable. No interference is warranted. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on merits and the petitioner's option to raise all relevant and necessary contentions at later stages shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-