Chandar vs State Rep By The Sho
2022 Latest Caselaw 4127 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4127 Mad
Judgement Date : 3 March, 2022

Madras High Court

Chandar vs State Rep By The Sho on 3 March, 2022

                                                                                   Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2022



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 03.03.2022

                                                            CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

                                                 Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2022


                     Chandar                                              ... Petitioner/Defacto
                                                                                         Complainant

                                                             Vs

                     State Rep by the SHO,
                     D.C.B. P.S., Cuddalore,
                     Cr.No.25 of 2020
                     C.P.No.260 of 2020 and C.P.No.39 of 2021
                     U/s.419, 420 of IPC                                  ... Respondent

                     PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and
                     401 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and set aside the order dated
                     23.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.452 of 2021 in Cr.No.25 of 2020 on the
                     file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore and direct the respondent to
                     return the seized cash, a sum of Rs.9,10,000/- and thus allow this Criminal
                     Revision.

                                    For Petitioner      :     Mr.K.P.Anantha Krishna

                                    For Respondent      :     Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
                                                              Government Advocate (Crl.Side)



                     1/8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2022




                                                          ORDER

Aggrieved over the order dated 23.10.2021 made in

Crl.M.P.No.452 of 2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Cuddalore, the petitioner, who is the defacto complainant in Crime No.25 of

2020 on the file of the D.C.B. Police Station, Cuddalore has preferred this

Criminal Revision, wherein, he prayed to return the cash i.e. a sum of

Rs.9,10,000/-, which was recovered in the above crime number.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner runs a pawn

shop. The accused, Janagiraman sought money under the pretext that his

jewels were pledged with the ICICI Bank and the jewels can be kept by the

petitioner till repayment is done by the accused. The value of the jewels

were more than the amount sought for by the accused. Accordingly, induced

by the accused, the petitioner on 06.11.2020 personally visited and

deposited Rs.18,00,000/- in OT ICICI Bank, Cuddalore in favour of

Account No.269901505346 and the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in

HDFC, Vallivilas Hospital Branch in favour of Account

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2022

No.50100377622608 on the same day. After depositing the money, the

petitioner and the accused went to eat nearby from where the accused

escaped without handing over the jewels as promised to the petitioner.

Immediately upon the complaint given by the petitioner herein, the

respondent police registered the above case in Crime No.25 of 2020 against

the accused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

after recovering a cash i.e. a sum of Rs.9,10,000/- from the accused, the

respondent police handed over the same before the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore as case property and the same was received by

the Judicial Magistrate in C.P.No.260 of 2020 and C.P.No.39 of 2021.

Later, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.452 of 2021 under

Section 451 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he prayed to hand over the said cash for

interim custody. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore after

observing that if these properties are returned to the petitioner for interim

custody, it would affect the trial and it would cause hurdle in marking the

recovered amount as material object and ultimately dismissed the petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2022

Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with this Criminal Revision

Petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondent police fairly admits that the property now in the hands of the

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore is belongs to the petitioner and he is

the absolute owner to the said property.

5. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on

either side are considered.

6. Though it was contended on the side of prosecution that if

the property is returned to the petitioner for interim custody, it could create

a hurdle during the time of trial, being the reason that the money is for

circulation, it cannot be kept in a custody. In this regard, in the judgment

rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, it was

held as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2022

“12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:

(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles;

(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and

(3) after taking proper security.

13. For this purpose, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The Court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the Court under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to impose any other appropriate condition.”

7. Now applying the principle set out in the above referred

judgment with the case on hand, this Court is inclined to direct the Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore, to return the cash i.e. a sum of Rs.9,10,000/-,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2022

which was seized from the accused in Crime No.25 of 2020 to the petitioner

on condition that by taking photographs (i.e. Xerox) the denomination of

the currency notes shall be noted and signed by the petitioner and the

Investigating Officer, later the same be attested by the Judicial Magistrate

No.II, Cuddalore. Thereafter, the amount shall be handed over to the

petitioner. Further, a personal bond for a sum of Rs.9,10,000/-, to be

obtained from the petitioner with an undertaking that the amount of

Rs.9,10,000/- received is subject to the outcome of Crime No.25 of 2020.