IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.11739 of 2010 Between: R. Krishna Veni … Petitioner And: State of A.P., rep. by the State Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .... Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.11739 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 01.07.2010 in CRP No.27 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, wherein, the said revision petition filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed, confirming the order dated 07.05.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.413 of 2010 in CC No.324 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Piler. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein is the de-facto complainant. Based on her complaint, the police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. During the investigation, the case property, namely, gold ornaments have been seized and produced before the Court and they are now in the custody of the Court. According to the complainant, the accused has taken the said gold ornaments from the petitioner by cheating her and pledged them with the Pawn Broker. The petitioner seeks return of the gold ornaments pending trial on the ground that they are required for wearing at the time of her cousin’s marriage. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the case property is required during the course of trial for the purpose of identification, as no descriptive particulars were mentioned either in the complaint or in the statements of the witnesses. On revision, the learned Sessions Judge, confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. 4. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that they do not suffer from any legal infirmity or irregularity. Inasmuch as, the case property, namely, gold ornaments are required at the time of trial for the purpose of their identification and as the descriptive particulars have not been mentioned either in the complaint or in the statements of the witnesses, it is considered that they cannot be returned at this stage for interim custody of the petitioner. The petitioner is however at liberty to renew her request for return of the case property at an appropriate stage during the course of trial as observed by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.11.2010 bss