IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 08.02.2007 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice K.N.BASHA Crl. R.C.No.926 of 2006 Meena l .. Petitioner vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, A.V.S., Chintadripet, Chennai. (Cr.No.165 of 2005) .. Respondent Revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, made in C.M.P.No.2787 of 2006, dated 14.06.2006 and return the gold chain weighing 40 grams to the revision petitioner in respect of Crime No.165 of 2005 pending investigation on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deivasigamani For Respondent : Mr.P. Kumaresan Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R The petitioner has come forward with this petition challenging the order of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner for return of jewel, namely, 'Thali murukku chain'. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated for the alleged offences under Sections 3 (2)(a), 4(1), 5(d)(ii), 6(2)(a), 7(1)(a) & 9 Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act and 366(A), 373 I.P.C. & 23 of J.J. Act, 2000 and she has nothing to do with the alleged offence. In view of the seizure of the chain, the petitioner has been put into a great hardship and irreparable loss. It is also contended by the learned counsel that no prejudice would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be caused to the prosecution in the event of giving the interim custody of the property viz., Murukku chain to the petitioner herein. 3. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of both side and also perused the impugned order of the learned magistrate dismissing the petition for return of interim custody of the Murukku chain. 5. It is seen from the materials that the petitioner has been implicated for the alleged offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(d) (ii), 6(2)(a), 7(1)(a) & 9 Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act and 366 (A), 373 I.P.C. & 23 of J.J. Act, 2000 and therefore, prima facie, it is clear that the chain is absolutely noting to do with the alleged offence said to have been committed by the petitioner herein. A perusal of the impugned order makes it crystal clear that the learned Magistrate has not assigned any valid reason for declining to give interim custody of the property to the petitioner herein. Therefore, this Court is constrained to direct the learned Magistrate to return the property, viz., murukku chain,for interim custody to the petitioner, pending disposal of the trial, on the petitioner complying the following conditions: a) the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. (b) the petitioner shall produce the jewel, viz., 'murukku chain' as and when required by the respondent police ; (c) the petitioner shall furnish the correct address and to prove the same, produce the relevant documents, before the respondent police. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. gg https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, 2. -do- through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 3. The Inspector of Police, A.V.S., Chintadripet, Chennai. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. + 1 CC To Mr.C.Deivasigamani, Advocate SR NO. 7679 Crl.R.C.No.926 of 2007 jrg[co] gp/16.2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/