Manappuram Finance Ltd ... vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9840 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945
                    CRL.REV.PET NO. 348 OF 2023
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.MP 721/2022 IN CRIME
 NO.571/2022 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION ON THE FILES OF
     JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAPURAM


REVISION PETITIONER/CLAIM PETITIONER:


          MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD
          REGD.OFFICE AT MANAPPURAM HOUSE,
          VALAPAD, THRISSUR,
          HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KOLLAM AREA 4,
          KOLLAM - PIN 691311.
          REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
          MR. PRIYALAL, AGED 47 YEARS,
          S/O GOPALAN NAIR.

          BY ADV B.S.SURESH KUMAR



RESPONDENT/STATE:


          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.

          BY ADV.M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.348 of 2023

                                  2

                             ORDER

Dated this the 13th day of September, 2023

The revision petitioner is a Non Banking Finance Company.

The revision petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 27.08.2022 in

Crl.M.P. No.721 of 2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's

Court, Pathanapuram, whereby the revision petitioner's application

under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for getting interim custody of gold

ornaments weighing 45.76 grams stands rejected.

2. The revision petitioner would contend that one Mr.Sijil

Krishnan availed a gold loan for an amount of Rs.1,63,000/- from

the revision petitioner by pledging 45.76 grams of gold ornaments,

on 18.05.2022. An amount of Rs.1,88,000/- is now due to the

revision petitioner from Mr.Sijil Krishnan.

3. On 17.06.2022, the Station House Officer,

Pathanapuram Police Station came to the branch of the revision

petitioner-Company and seized the gold pledged by Mr.Sijil Crl.Rev.Pet.No.348 of 2023

Krishnan. The revision petitioner states that on enquiry, the

revision petitioner came to know that one Mr.Ramachandran Nair,

who was running a business in the name of Pathanapuram

Bankers, has filed a case in the Pathanapuram Police Station

alleging theft in his office on 14.05.2022. Accused No.1 gave a

confession statement to the effect that the gold ornaments stolen

from the Pathanapuram Bankers were handed over to one Mr. Sijil

Krishnan, who had in turn pledged gold to the revision petitioner-

Company. The revision petitioner, therefore, approached the

Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pathanapuram for interim

custody of the gold ornaments under Section 451 of Cr.P.C.

4. The Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court considered

the petition filed by the revision petitioner and noted that the gold

ornaments involved are stolen property. The gold ornaments

belong to Pathanapuram Bankers. In that view of the matter, the

application filed by the revision petitioner was rejected. It is Crl.Rev.Pet.No.348 of 2023

aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2022 that the revision

petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Counsel for the revision petitioner would urge that the

revision petitioner is entitled to release of the gold ornaments

recovered by the police. Unless the gold ornaments released to

the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner would suffer heavy

loss. Counsel for the revision petitioner further argued that

possession of the gold ornaments was with the revision petitioner

in the light of bond and no one is having any right or claim over

the said gold ornaments. As the revision petitioner has lien over

those gold ornaments, interim custody of gold ornaments is liable

to be given to the revision petitioner.

6. Counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on

judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18267 of 2013, wherein this

Court held that the Magistrate shall take note of the fact that gold

ornaments are pledged with the revision petitioner and the Crl.Rev.Pet.No.348 of 2023

Magistrate shall see that ultimate orders passed in the matter shall

not in any way prejudice the right of the claimant to hold the gold

or ornaments as security for repayment of the loan amount.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revision

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the

respondent.

8. The matter involves an offence under Sections 457,

461 and 380 of IPC and the prosecution case is that on

14.05.2022, accused 1 and 2 trespassed into the money lending

bank Pathanapuram Bankers situated in Janatha Junction,

Pathanapuram, broke open two lockers and committed theft of

Rs.4,00,000/- and gold ornaments valuing Rs.38,00,000/-. During

interrogation, the 1st accused gave a confession statement that he

entrusted the stolen articles to one Mr. Sijil Krishnan, the 3 rd

accused. When the said Sijil Krishnan was interrogated, he stated

that the gold ornaments were pledged at various financial Crl.Rev.Pet.No.348 of 2023

institutions. On the basis of the information received, 45.76 grams

of gold ornaments were seized from the revision petitioner's

institution.

9. The specific allegation of the prosecution is that the

gold ornaments belong to Pathanapuram Bankers and it was

stolen by accused 1 to 3 in the crime. Since it was subsequently

pledged with the revision petitioner's Company, I am of the firm

view that the revision petitioner cannot as of right claim interim

custody of the gold ornaments, which are stolen property. I do not

find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 27.08.2022 in

Crl.MP No.721 of 2022 passed by the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Pathanapuram.

The Criminal Revision Petition fails and it is accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams