Chandra Prakash vs State Rep By
2023 Latest Caselaw 797 Mad

                                                                                Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 20.01.2023

                                                         CORAM:

                                     THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2023
                  Chandra Prakash
                                                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                          Vs.
                  State Rep by
                  The Inspector of Police,
                  Orleanpet Police Station,
                  Pondicherry.                                           ... Respondent
                  PRAYER : Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w.401 of
                  Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 06.12.2021 in
                  Cr.M.P.No.133 of 2020 in S.C.No.15/2020 by the learned II Additional
                  Sessions Judge, Puducherry.

                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.S.Lakshmi Narayanan

                                        For Respondent      : Mr.Raj Sharath for
                                                              Mr.P.Balamurugane, PP (Pondy)


                                                         ORDER

This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the order dated

06.12.2021 in Cr.M.P.No.133 of 2020 in S.C.No.15/2020 by the learned II

Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2023

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public

Prosecutor (Pondy) appearing for the respondent.

3. The revision petitioner is the petitioner who had filed a petition

under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., to return the properties connected to the case in

S.C.No.15 of 2020, on interim custody. The said petition was dismissed.

Aggrieved over that, the petitioner has filed this Revision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's

father was a Pawn Broker and he was murdered by his paternal uncle; in this

connection, a case has been registered in Cr.No.90 of 2014 on 05.04.2014; in

the above Pawn Broker Shop, gold jewels and cash were robbed by the

murderers; the jewels which have been robbed by the accused were melted

and converted into a gold bar and sold to some private financiers and utilised

the funds to purchase various properties; since the petitioner is the son of the

deceased and he is managing the Pawn Broker Shop, he can seek the lawful

custody of the gold bar, car and motorcycle and all other properties seized in

the case; since the jewels belonged to various third parties who had pledged

the same with the Pawn Broker's Shop of the petitioner's father, they are

rioting every day seeking return of their pledged jewels.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2023

5. It is seen that the property has not been recovered in the form of

jewels, but in the form of gold bar, car and motorcycle etc. and as now it

cannot be identified with relevant to the person who had pledged them.

Though it is logically right to say that the petitioner is the custodian of the

properties alleged to have been seized during the investigation of the case, lot

of confusion will be caused if the properties are returned to the petitioner

during the pendency of the case. There is every possibility that the properties

might be melted and converted and hence it is not possible for the petitioner to

produce the same at the time when it is required by the Court.

6. It is reliably learnt that the trial has already commenced and

witnesses are being examined. In that case, it will be ideal to allow the trial to

be completed and the judgment to be pronounced. During that time, the Court

could feel it convenient to pass any order on the discharge of the properties

recovered in this case. Taking into consideration of the fact that the gold

jewels have been converted into gold bars and ingots and the various third

persons have the claim over the said properties which were pledged, I feel it is

appropriate to allow the Trial Court to conclude the trial and then pass any

orders on the disposal of the properties.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2023

7. In view of the above stated reasons, I do not find any reason for

interference with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. Taking into

consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is

appropriate to direct the learned Trial Judge to expedite the trial and complete

the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order.

8. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed and the

order passed in Cr.M.P.No.133 of 2020 in S.C.No.15/2020 dated 06.12.2021

by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, is confirmed.

20.01.2023 Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order gsk

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2023

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Orleanpet Police Station, Pondicherry.

2. II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2023

R.N.MANJULA, J.

gsk

Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2023

20.01.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis