( 1 ) crwp1018.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1018 OF 2011 Sau. Sujata w/o. Sanjeev Gadge .. Petitioner Age. 34 years, Occ. Doctor, R/o. Gajanan Colony, MIDC, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Shivraj B. Kadu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE,J. DATED : 27.04.2012 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. By consent of parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. This writ petition challenges the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below rejecting the petitioner’s application moved under section 451 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the muddemal gold articles, in Crime No.206 of 2010 of M.I.D.C. Police Station, Ahmednagar. It is common ground that the petitioner is the complainant in Crime No.206 of 2010. It is a case of theft. It is prosecution case that theft of gold ( 2 ) crwp1018.11 ornaments weighing more than 56 gms. took place between 17.06.2010 to 23.09.2010 at the house of the petitioner/ complainant. It is further prosecution case that during the investigation, police arrested the accused and recovered from them gold ingot weighing 33.5 gms. It is prosecution case that the accused converted the ornaments stolen from the house of the petitioner/complainant into the gold ingot. It is, thus, clear that the prosecution admits that the petitioner is the owner of the gold ingot. In view of this admitted position and since the accused did not object in this case, the petitioner/complainant was entitled to return of ingot muddemal article for safe keeping during the pendency of the case. He ought to have been given the valuable article on Supurtnama and bond. Both the courts below failed to realize the elementary principle that the police and the Courts are established for not only detection of crime, prosecution and punishment of the criminals, but also for redressal/rehabilitation of the victims of crimes. The petitioner/complainant is admittedly a victim of this crime and since the prosecution admitted his ownership, learned Judicial Officers could not have any other opinion on such factual aspect of the case. They could not have refused to deliver the muddemal to the petitioner. Even if the form of the stolen articles was changed, the petitioner/ ( 3 ) crwp1018.11 complainant did not lose ownership of the stolen articles. This simple logic was probably lost sight of. The petition should therefore succeed. 4. On instructions, learned A.P.P confirms that the gold ingot is still with the police. 5. Hence, the criminal writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of following order :- 6. The muddemal article i.e. gold weighing 33.5 grams shall be returned to the petitioner/complainant on his executing Supurtnama and bond of suitable amount which shall be fixed by the learned Magistrate. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] snk/2012/APR12/crwp1018.11