This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed praying to call for the entire records connected to the order dated 26.05.2017 passed in Cr.M.P.No.2338 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil and set aside second part of the condition in condition No.3, directing the petitioner to produce two solvent sureties, consequently directing the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil to accept two personal sureties.
2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are as under :-
A case has been registered in Crime No.60 of 2016, on 31.01.2016, against one Biju Chacko, Manager, Kulasekaram Branch, by the respondent Police, under
Sections 381 &
409 of IPC., on the complaint given by the Petitioner / Regional Manager of Kosamattam Finance Company Limited for Kanyakumari Region. After arresting the accused on 02.02.2016, the accused was taken into Police custody and on interrogation by the respondent Police, 2.5 Kgs of Gold jewels were recovered from the accused on his confession and the same were remanded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil in R.P.No.17/2017 & R.P.No.18/2017 and the said Properties were under the custody of the concerned Court. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2338 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, seeking return of jewels remanded in R.P.No.17/2017 & R.P.No.18/2017, to the Court custody. Notice was issued to the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, and heard the objections raised by the accused also and the respondent police and passed the impugned order of return of jewels on conditions. The one of the conditions imposed upon the petitioner is that the petitioner shall furnish a bond for Rs.25,00,000/- with two solvent sureties. Aggrieved by the condition mentioned as Condition No.3 in the impugned order, dated 26.05.2017, in Crl.M.P.No.2338 of 2017, in Crime No.60 of 2016, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Petition to set aside the second part of the condition in condition No.3, directing the petitioner to produce two solvent sureties for a like sum of Rs.25,00,000/- each, which is onerous and sought modification, directing the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, to accept two personal sureties instead of two solvent sureties.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner Company has its Head Office at Kottayam in Kerala State and therefore, the petitioner can produce only its staff members as sureties and all its employees do not have property that worth about Rs.25,00,000/- and the petitioner got the property worth about Rs.1,77,00,000/- in Trichy on the strength of which he has obtained a solvent certificate for Rs.25,00,000/- and the petitioner is ready to produce the said certificate and two personal sureties.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has not chosen to file any written objections, though sufficient time was granted by this Court, but he has submitted his oral objections at the time of hearing this Criminal Revision.
5. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Court below and considered the rival submissions made by both sides.
6. The trial Court / Court below has ordered that the property in S.Nos.II & III in R.P.No.79/17 namely overs numbering to 120, and Black colour bag-1 (hp) respectively and the property in S.No.14 (Item No.1 to 35) covered in R.P.No.80/17 namely covering jewels and S.Nos.15 & 16 namely brown covers and black colour bag 1 (Wilson) to be retained in the Court till the conclusion of the trial.
7. On perusal of the impugned order of return of value of the properties the accused would contend before the trial Court that the recovery part of jewels belonged to him, which were purchased by him and the remaining jewels belongs to his mother, who had received them from her parental house as ''Sreedana' and the petitioner has not filed any documents or evidence to show the name of the customers, who pledged the jewels and they have not shown the list of defaulters, who pledged the jewels and other details relating to the auction of jewels and he never took any jewels from the Company. Hence, there is a rival claim by the accused himself in respect of the jewels recovered from him. However, the accused has not preferred any Revision against the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court was ordered to return of jewels several items of valuable gold jewels on the basis of the alleged confession statement of the accused made after his arrest. The alleged confession in respect of the seizure of the gold jewels shown in the schedule of the impugned order is to be proved only at the time of trial. No records / documents were placed by the petitioner, who claims ownerships of the seized items before passing the impugned order. The accused in this case was working as Branch Manager of Kosamattam Finance Company Limited at Kulasekaram. It is further stated that out of total 4037 Grams of gold jewels, the respondent police have sofar recovered 2.5 Kgs of gold jewels, which were remanded in R.P.Nos.78 and 80 of 2017 and the said properties are in custody of the trial Court.
8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the value of the several items of gold jewels seized in this case, increasing day-by-day and also the nature of claim of ownership by the petitioner only on the basis of the alleged confession of the accused, which is to be proved only at the time of trial and also the reasons assigned for modification of the conditions in respect of furnishing two solvent sureties for Rs.25,00,000/- in this Revision, this Court is inclined to modify the 2nd part of the condition No.3, in the impugned order by directing the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.25,00,000/- with one solvent surety for a like sum instead of two solvent sureties.
9. In the result, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed by setting aside the Condition No.3 of the impugned order, dated 26.05.2017, passed in Cr.M.P.No.2338 of 2017, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, by modifying the 2nd part of the condition No.3, by directing the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.25,00,000/- with one solvent surety for a like sum instead of two solvent sureties. There is no alteration in the remaining condition imposed in the impugned order.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vadaseri Police Station Kanyakumari District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4. The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
.