HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5109 of 2009 Dated : 17.08.2009 Between : Saladhi Suryanarayana ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. & 4 others ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5109 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for the first respondent. Notices of respondent Nos.2 to 5 are stated to have been served and the postal acknowledgments in corroboration of the same have been filed into the Registry. None entered appearance for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are stated to be juveniles, but in the absence of any information on record as to their natural or legal guardians, it is a physical impossibility to reach any such guardian before determining this petition. The claim of the petitioner that crime No.96 of 2008 of Kothapet Police Station was registered on the complaint of his brother’s son about the theft of gold articles from his house on 26.12.2008 is not in dispute. It is during the investigation into the offence allegedly committed under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code that the properties in question were seized from the possession of respondent Nos.2 to 5. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.86 of 2009 before the trial Court for grant of interim custody of the properties so recovered from respondent Nos.2 to 5 claiming to be the absolute owner of the properties worth Rs.2,00,000/- and undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court. He also undertook not to change the nature of the properties in the meanwhile, but as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application stating that the investigation is still pending and that returning the properties by way of interim custody without issuing notice to one of the juveniles is unjust, the trial Court dismissed the said application. It has to be noted that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute and could not have disputed the claims of the petitioner being the owner of the recovered properties and the very recovery was based on the confession of the juveniles alleging the same to be the properties stolen from the house of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the gold articles are required for the purpose of the marriage of petitioner’s daughter and there could not have been any more reasonable necessity for seeking interim custody of the ornaments. The Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat[1] directed appropriate conditions to be imposed concerning interim custody of valuable articles. The Apex Court accepted the submission that there is no use keeping the articles in police custody for years together till the trial is over and prescribed the procedure to be followed for handing over the valuable articles like gold or silver ornaments to the complainant if the material on record indicates that they belong to the complainant at whose house the alleged robbery or dacoity has taken place. The present petitioner fulfills the conditions prescribed by the Apex Court and the properties should, therefore, be returned to the interim custody of the petitioner in the manner in which the Apex Court laid down the guidelines. Therefore, the different items of movable properties (item Nos.1 to 14 described in Crl.M.P.No.86 of 2009 before the trial Court by the petitioner) shall be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner on his execution of a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Juvenile Justice Court, Rajahmundry, and on his undertaking to maintain the articles in the same physical state without altering any of their physical features and further undertaking to produce the same whenever directed by the Court till the finality of the criminal proceedings. Before entrusting such interim custody, a detailed and proper panchanama of the articles should be made by the trial Court and photographs of the articles should be taken and the said panchanama and photographs shall be countersigned by the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 as well as the Chief Ministerial Officer or Presiding Officer of the concerned Court. The criminal petition is ordered accordingly. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th August, 2009 SUR [1] (2002) 10 SCC 283