Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2110 (MAD)

Puckraj Jain v. Krishnamoorthy & Others

2007-07-10

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2007
Judgment :- This revision has been preferred by one Puckraj Jain, receiver of 55.550 grams of jewels, the case property in C.C.No.778/1998. This revision has been preferred against the order passed in C.M.P.No.246 of 1998 in C.C.No.778 of 1988 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore. 2. The said petition (C.M.P.No.246 of 1998) was filed by one Krishnamoorthy, the complainant in C.C.No.778 of 1988 under Section 91(1) of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to issue summons to produce the case property i.e., 54.550 grams of jewels from the custody of the respondents, R1-Rajendran, R2-Station House officer, Cuddalore N.T., in Cr.No.397/2002. The other prayer in the said petition is to return the case property i.e., 55.550 grams of jewels to the petitioner viz. Krishnamoorthy. Both the respondent 1 & 2 have not filed any counter to the said application. Only the receiver Puckraj Jain has filed a counter stating that he (Puckraj Jain) is only a pawn broker and that the accused Rajendran, the brother of the complainant Krishnamoorthy, has pledged the jewels on two different dates weighing 54.500 and 0.600 grams and that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, has passed an order directing him (Puckraj Jain) to keep the jewels with him and execute a bond to produce the same whenever required by the Court. After going through the averments in the petition and counter filed by the receiver Puckraj Jain, the learned Judicial Magistrate has allowed the petition in part directing the receiver Puckraj Jain to produce the property before the Court and dismissed the petition for the prayer for return of the properties to the petitioner. Against the direction of producing the property before the Court by the receiver Puckraj Jain, this revision has been preferred by the Puckraj Jain-receiver. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Thiru.S.Y.Masood would focus the attention of this Court to the fact that the State has already withdrawn the case from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate on the ground that they could not secure the accused Rajendran for the past 10 years and that there is also no possibility for securing him in future. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore, has passed an order of withdrawal under Section 321 of Cr.P.C., on 2. 2002 and even that order itself it has been specifically stated that order for the disposal of the property will be passed separately. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore, has passed an order of withdrawal under Section 321 of Cr.P.C., on 2. 2002 and even that order itself it has been specifically stated that order for the disposal of the property will be passed separately. Admittedly so far no order for the disposal of the property has been passed by the Court. The complainant has approached the Court by way of C.M.P.No.246 of 1998 for return of the property after giving a direction to the accused and the police to produce the property before the Court. Admittedly Puckraj Jain is in custody of the jewels weighing 54.500 grams and 0.600 grams as per his counter filed in C.M.P.No.246 of 1998. Even though there is a direction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as by this Court to the revision petitioner herein (Puckraj Jain) to produce the jewels (case properties) at the time of trial, now the circumstance has been changed because there is no scope for trial because the case has been withdrawn under Section 321 of Cr.P.C., by the State. 4. Now the question remains who is entitled to the case properties whether Puckraj Jain or the complainant Krishnamoorthy. Puckraj Jain, the revision petitioner, claims that he is the pawn broker and the jewels weighing 54.500 grams and 0.600 grams were pledged to him by the accused Rajendran, who is none other than the brother-in-law of the complainant Krishnamoorthy. At no stretch of imagination it can be said that Puckraj Jain is the owner of the case properties viz. the gold jewels. He is only a pawn broker. After producing the necessary records to the effect that the case properties (jewels) were pledged to him, he can file necessary application before the trial Court for appropriate orders. At the most, Puckraj Jain will be entitled to the amount he has given to the person, who had pledged the above said jewels, showing the relevant records maintained by him in his pawn shop. 5. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the revision petitioner cannot get any relief in this revision. But the remedy open to him is to file necessary application before the trial Court for appropriate orders from the Court concerned after producing necessary documents to show that the jewels were pledged with him. 5. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the revision petitioner cannot get any relief in this revision. But the remedy open to him is to file necessary application before the trial Court for appropriate orders from the Court concerned after producing necessary documents to show that the jewels were pledged with him. As per the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as this Court, he has to produce the case properties immediately before the trial Court, of course after getting necessary acknowledgment from the Court. With the above observation, this criminal revision is disposed of. Connected Crl.M.P.No.4638 of 2005 is also closed.