Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This petition is filed by the complainant in S.C.No.333 of 1997 pending on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai. One Pratab, an employee of the complainant firm was proceeding after alighting in Central station and was proceeding in a cycle-rickshaw towards George Town on 21.4.1997 at 7.45 p.m. While the said person was proceeding near Waltax Road, about six people came in an auto-rickshaw way-laid the cycle-rickshaw and snatched away the suit case containing Rs.5.5 lakhs. The victim namely, Pratab went and gave a complaint before the Flower Bazaar Police Station on the basis of which, a case in Crime No.1504 of 1997 was registered under Secs.397 and 120-B of I.P.C. During the course of investigation, these accused were found involved and they were arrested and on the information furnished by the accused, a sum of Rs.4,75,000 have been recovered and the same has been remanded to the court. The charge-sheet has been laid and the committal enquiry is over. Now the case is pending trial before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.333 of 1997. 3. The petitioner who is the employer, to whom the money belongs, filed a petition for return of the money before the learned VI District and Sessions Judge. But the learned Sessions Judge had however dismissed the application stating that the trial is pending and therefore the amount could not be returned to the petitioner. The case of the prosecution itself is that the amount seized from the accused belongs to this petitioner under whose employment the victim Pratab was employed. The accused also so far has not made any claim to the amount seized and remanded before the Court. The amount remanded to the court is Rs.4,75,000. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have been hesitant in returning the amount because the case is pending trial and the amount has to be identified at the time of the trial. 4. The amount after seizure from the accused has been recovered under athatchi attested by the witness and the order who seized the amount. The number of currency notes are also noted. The Magistrate ought to have noted the number of each and every currency in the property register and therefore the athatchi of property register extract can be marked in evidence to prove the identity of the property seized. The number of currency notes are also noted. The Magistrate ought to have noted the number of each and every currency in the property register and therefore the athatchi of property register extract can be marked in evidence to prove the identity of the property seized. No doubt, the serial number of each and every note seized should be mentioned in the property register and the amount need not be kept idle in the custody of the court. The petitioner does not want immediate return of the property pending disposal of the trial. 5. Therefore, the learned District Judge is directed to deposit the amount after noting down the number etc. as stated above in the Indian Bank, High Court extension, for a period of one year and if necessary he can extend the period of deposit until it is finally decided by the court as to whether the amount has to be returned to the present petitioner or not. The petitioner will not be allowed to draw any interest and the amount shall be invested in re-investment scheme. 6. The petition is allowed.