This petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 31.03.2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1447 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, Thiruvarur District.
2. The petitioner herein, a third party to the criminal proceeding has filed the petition, seeking return of the ingaurd seized in Cr.No.399 of 2007.
3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent raised his objections and further submits that though charge-sheet was filed in the case is pending for trial, even as per the complaint given by the petitioner before the police, only gold jewels were stolen from his shop by somebody, but admittedly, the property recovered from the accused is only gold ingot and therefore, there is no possibility for the petitioner to identify the property recovered from the accused.
4. It is not in dispute that the property recovered from the accused is only a gold ingot. Admittedly, the alleged stolen property from the petitioner's shop was not ingot, but only gold jewels. In such circumstances, it is not possible for the petitioner to identify the property recovered from the accused. Hence, the ownership of the property has to be established, which cannot be decided solely on the basis of the statement of the accused, otherwise, it would be a bad signal for the persons claiming ingots, having hand and glove with any accused. Therefore, getting return of the gold ingot recovered from the accused, any petitioner / third party has to establish his claim by corroborative evidence, apart from the statement of the accused.
5. As the case is pending for trial before the court below, the property seized from the accused in the form of ingot shall not be returned at this stage, as the ownership of the property has to be established, as per procedure known to law and the same is also required for marking as material object in the case. Hence, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned order, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner and therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
tsvn To
1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Nannilam, Thiruvarur District.
2. The The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nannilam Police Station, Thiruvarur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras