Judgment : The petitioner is the owner of the property namely gold ingots and currency notes to the tune of Rs.11,500/-. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Pawnbroker and the above said properties were stolen from his shop. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above said properties also recovered. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution in the event of granting interim custody of the above said properties. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case registered on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner herein was closed as not traceable and ultimately the properties said to have been recovered from some other case. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the owner of the properties namely Gold ingots and currency notes to the tune of Rs.11,500/-. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner himself is the victim and the said properties have been stolen from his shop and ultimately recovered from one of the accused in an-other case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is en-titled to the interim custody of the above properties and no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution in the event of granting interim custody of the said properties to the petitioner herein. Therefore, this Court is constrained to direct the learned Magistrate concerned to re-turn the properties subject to the following condition. 1. Preparing detailed proper panch-name of such articles. 2. Taking photographs of such articles including currency notes and a bond to the effect that such articles excluding cash would be produced if required at the time of trial and 3. Petitioner shall produce personal bond to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The criminal revision petition is ordered accordingly. This case having been posted for Being mentioned on Friday the Twentieth day of April 2007 in the presence of the aforesaid Advocates, the Court made the following Order: This matter is listed today for Being Mentioned. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that in Para 4 of the order dated 3. This case having been posted for Being mentioned on Friday the Twentieth day of April 2007 in the presence of the aforesaid Advocates, the Court made the following Order: This matter is listed today for Being Mentioned. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that in Para 4 of the order dated 3. 2007 in Crl.R.C. No.389 of 2006, the amount of Rs.1,11,500/-has been wrongly mentioned as Rs.11,500/- and hence, the error may be rectified. 3. Therefore, in para No.4 of the order dated 3. 2007 in Crl.R.C. No.389 of 2006 the amount of Rs.11,500/- is modified as Rs.1,11,500/-. The petition is ordered accordingly.