1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 01.03.2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.RC.(MD).Nos.61 and 128 of 2011 Cr.Rc.No.61 of 2011 Pandyan Grama Bank, Regional Office, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, Rep. by its Regional Manager. .. Petitioner vs. 1.State Represented by, Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cr.No.54/2010, Tirunelveli District. 2.Sankara Gomathy 3.Pothikachalam 4.Sivasankara Sundara Mahalingam 5.T.Antony Micheal Kumar @ J.A.M. Kumar, 41. Branch in Charge (Branch Manager), Muthoot Finance Corporation Limited, Anjugramam Branch, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records from the lower Court and to duly set aside the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in his Cr.M.P.No.5201/2010 dated 19.10.2010 and thereby granting interim custody of the jewels to the revision petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Prabhu. For Respondents: Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.N.Subramani for R2 & R4 Mr.S.Ramesh for R5 Cr.Rc.No.128 of 2011 T.Antony Micheal Kumar @ J.a.M.Kumar, 41. Branch in Charge, Muthoot Finance Corporation Limited, Anjugramam Branch, Kanyakumari. .. Petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 vs. 1.Sangili Pandi, Regional manager, Pandyan Grama Bank, Tirunelveli. 2.Tamil Nadu State Government, Rep. by its Inspector Of Police (D.C.B) Tirunelveli. 3.Jeya Sahayaseelan 4.Ragu Prakash .. Respondents Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the common order dated 19.10.2010 by Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No.5325 of 2010 and order to return the case property to the revision petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari for Mr.S.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 COMMON ORDER Crl.Rc.No.61 of 2011 has been moved by the Pandyan Grama Bank. Crl.Rc.No.128 of 2011 has been moved by the Muthoot Finance Corporation Limited. 2. The case in Crime No.54 of 2010 was registered against five accused for offence under Section 409 I.P.C., on the file of the District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli. The Pandyan Grama Bank/defacto complainant alleged that A1 to A3 were its Branch Managers while A4 was a jewel appraiser. These four persons acting in concert had done away with jewelry that stood pledged to the Bank through A5 and the same were pledged with the Muthoot Finance. The defacto complaint/Pandyan Grama Bank has moved a petition in Cr.M.P.No.5201/2010, under Section 451 Cr.P.C., on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tirunelveli, seeking return of property. The Muthoot Finance Limited moved a similar petition in Cr.M.P.No.5325/2010. 3. The lower Court under order dated 19.10.2010, dismissed Cr.M.P.Nos.5201 & 5325 of 2010. However, the lower Court had recorded that neither the accused nor the complainant police had any objection to handing over of the jewels to the interim custody of the defacto complaint. 4. On consideration of the rival submissions particularly that of Muthoot Finance Limited which in effect was that they were the persons in lawful possession of the property, which ought not to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 disturbed, the lower Court chose to negate the claims on both parties. The reason assigned by the lower Court is that entrustment of the property by way of interim custody may cause inconvenience to the investigation as well as the trial process and that the rival claim has to be settled during the course of trial. Against the order of the lower Court both rival claimants have preferred revisions. 5. Heard Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/state. 6. We may merely state that in passing the order under challenge, the lower Court has ducked the issue. We set aside the order of the lower Court and hold that the claim of one, for custody of property on the contention that the same has been stolen from him is to be preferred against one who says since he has done nothing unlawful in accepting pledge there of. We may explain by informing that in the event of conviction, the defacto complainant would be entitled for return of property wrongfully taken out of his possession, while the claim of the pledgee in such event would at best be one of recovery of the amounts lent to the accused pursuant to the pledge. Cr.R.C.No.61 of 2011 is allowed and Cr.r.C.No.128 of 2011 is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch,Tirunelveli District. 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,Tirunelveli. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. Crl.RC.(MD).Nos.61 and 128 of 2011 01.03.2011 vsm SMA/30.03.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/