Ponnammal vs State on 9 June, 2016

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Ponnammal vs State on 9 June, 2016

Bench: P.Devadass

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 09.06.2016  

CORAM   
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS            

C.R.L.RC(MD) No.120 of 2016  


Ponnammal                                                 ... Petitioner / Petitioner /
                                                                     De facto Complainant

-vs-

State, rep.by its
The Inspector of Police
Thirumayam Police Station 
Pudukottai District
In Crime No.12 of 2015                                  ... Respondent / Respondent
/
                                                                   Respondent 

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, in Cr.M.P.No.1070 of 2015, dated 16.03.2015
and direct the learned Judicial Magistrate to give interim custody of the
stolen jewels.
        
!For Petitioner :       Mr.A.Arun Prasad 

^For Respondent :       Mr.P.Kandasamy           
                          Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

:O R D E R

This matter is squarely covered by the Apex Court's Judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003 (1) CTC 175 (SC)].

2. The de facto complainant aggrieved by the dismissal of her property return petition in Cr.M.P.No.1070 of 2015, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, has directed this revision.

3. The de facto complainant belongs to Veerapatti in Thirumayam Taluk in Pudukottai District. On 21.01.2015, A1 and A2 have committed robbery in her house. She was robbed of her gold items. She lodged complaint on 22.01.2015. Thirumayam Taluk Police registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2015 under Section 392 I.P.C. On 11.02.2015, the accused persons were arrested. A1 gave confessional statement vide Section 27 of Evidence Act. In the course of which, jewels concerned in Crime No.12 of 2015, were seized under a Seizure Mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses. In the circumstances, the de facto complainant claimed interim custody of those jewels by filing Cr.M.P.No.1070 of 2015.

4. The learned Magistrate, having found difference as to the jewel items in the F.I.R., and in the jewels produced before the Court, got confused, dismissed the petition. Had he applied his mind little and read the relevant papers and the case-diary, he need not have confused. As we have read the papers, we have not confused.

5. Now, in this case, in the F.I.R., the de facto complainant has mentioned about her jewels, which were snatched by the robberers. Thereafter, when the Investigation Officer examined her under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she had stated that she has lost her gold chain-1 No. gold rings ? 3 Nos. and gold bracelet ? 1 No., totally it comes to 5 Nos. Subsequently, the robberers were nabbed by the Police on 11.02.2015 and A1 gave confessional statement, wherein he has clearly mentioned that he along with A2 had robbed the de facto complainant and he had also detailed the 5 Nos. of gold jewels. The said confessional statement, under Section 27 of Evidence Act, cannot be used to convict a person, but it can be used for any other purpose, such as property recovery, question of sentence etc. Now, if we refer the details given in the confessional statement of A1 coupled with the statement of de facto complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is clear that the jewels recovered in this case and produced before the Court belongs to the de facto complainant alone. Further, when the accused persons were produced before the learned Magistrate for remand, they did not make any claim that those jewels belong to them. Further, as on date, there is no rival claimant. Further, the prosecution / the Investigation Officer did not say those jewels does not belong to the de facto complainant. In such circumstances, the principles laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) squarely applies to this case.

6. Ordered as under:

i.      This criminal revision is allowed.
ii.     The Order, dated 16.03.2015, passed in Cr.M.P.No.1070 of 2015, by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, is set aside. iii. The learned Magistrate, will give interim custody of 5 Nos. of gold jewels concerned in Crime No.12 of 2015 to the revision petitioner. iv. The revision petitioner will execute a personal bond for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate. v. A photograph of the said jewels with the signature of the revision petitioner shall be kept in the case records.

vi. Until final property order is passed by the said Magistrate, the revision petitioner shall not dispose of, alter or change the said jewels. vii. The revision petitioner shall cause the production of the said jewels as and when so ordered by the said Magistrate.

1.The District Munsif-cum-

Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam.

2.The Government Advocate (Criminal Side), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3.The Inspector of Police, Thirumayam Police Station, Pudukottai District..

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court