Judgment : The Petitioner/Appellant has projected the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the order of dismissal passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, dated 22.4.2013 in Crl.R.C.No.8/2011. 2. The Learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, while passing the impugned order in Crl.R.C.No.8/2011, dated 22.4.2013, had, inter alia, in paragraph Nos.10 and 11, stated the following:- “10. The Hon'ble High Court in Crl.R.P.253/2009, dated 03.04.2009, in Kalluram Versus State represented by the Nannilam Police Station, had held as the case is pending for trial before the court below, the properties seized from the accused in the form of ingots shall not be returned at this stage, as the ownership of the properties has to be established as per the procedure known to law and the same is also required for marking the material objects in this case, and hence I could not find no error or infirmity in the impugned order dismissing the petition filed by the Petitioner, and the Cr.R.P. is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, in the matter of the return of the properties, when the properties is being formed into ingot may not be returned to the party, unless the ownership of the defacto Complainant is established, that can be decided only by the trial. On the strength of the above judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, and the facts and circumstances of the cases, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai, and accordingly, the order passed by the trial court in rejecting the application is hereby confirmed for different reasons.” “and resultantly dismissed the Revision thereby confirming the order dated 6.1.2011 passed by the trial court in Crl.M.P. 138[A] of 2011. 3. According to the Learned counsel for the Appellant, both the Courts below had failed to appreciate that the Appellant/Petitioner gave an undertaking to return the ingots as and when the Court issue directions to produce the same. Therefore, there would be no question of changing or altering the original ingots. 4. The Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the Appellant is a Doctor by profession and also a senior citizen practicing for the past 60 years and is not going to change or alter the ingots. Therefore, there would be no question of changing or altering the original ingots. 4. The Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the Appellant is a Doctor by profession and also a senior citizen practicing for the past 60 years and is not going to change or alter the ingots. The Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently submits that the first appellate Court, while dismissing the Revision Petition, had relied on this Court's order dated 3.4.2009 in Crl.R.P.253/2009, which is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the Appellant that both the courts below failed to take into account a very vital fact that the occurrence took place on 21.5.2010 and the accused were arrested and the case articles and other things were recovered on 18.6.2010, 25.6.2010, 28.7.2010 and 26.8.2010. Moreover, the ingots were recovered on 28.7.2010. Although, as per the First Information Report, 60 sovereigns of gold was stolen, the recovery was made only for 55 sovereigns and a sum of Rs.40,000/-, out of Rs.1 lakh, was recovered. 6. Conversely, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that both the Courts below had dismissed Crl.M.P. 138[A] of 2011 on 6.1.2011 and Crl.R.C.No.8/2011 on 22.4.2013 filed by the Appellant/Petitioner, and in fact, the first appellate Court had opined that when the properties were in the form of ingots, they may not be returned to the party, unless the ownership of the Defacto Complainant was established and this could be decided only by trial of the main case. In effect, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant supports the orders of the trial court as well as the first appellate Court and further, it is represented on the part of the Respondent/Complainant that at this distance point of time, the said orders may not be interfered with by this Court sitting in Appeal Jurisdiction. 7. In the counter filed by the Respondent/Complainant, in paragraph 3, it was mentioned that part of the seized properties were returned to the Defacto Complainant/Petitioner vide C.P.Nos.497/ 2010; 566/2010; 694/2010 and 695/2010 through proper channel in accordance with law. 8. It is not in dispute that the Appellant/Petitioner has projected Crl.R.C.No.8/2011 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai, seeking return of case property pending disposal of the main case, in terms of Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. It is not in dispute that the Appellant/Petitioner has projected Crl.R.C.No.8/2011 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai, seeking return of case property pending disposal of the main case, in terms of Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the Appellant/Petitioner, he is the Defacto Complainant in the case and further, he is the absolute owner of the case property [gold ingots] seized by the Respondent/Police on the basis of the confessional statement and the deposit made before the Court in C.P.No.653/2010 - gold ingot weighing about 129.850 grams and in C.P.No.654/2010 - gold ingot weighing about 158.450 grams. 9. A mere running of the eye over the contents of the Petition in Crl.M.P.138[A] of 2011 filed by the Appellant/Petitioner shows that the Appellant was in urgent need of the case property [gold ingots] for the purpose of pledging them, in order to meet out the urgent expenses in connection with the educational expenses of the children of his family. Further, he had also undertaken to substitute a photocopy of the ingots for the purpose of marking the same at the time of trial of the case. 10. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant that the charge sheet in Crime No.474/2010 on the file of the Tiruvannamalai Town [Crime] Police Station was filed before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruvannamalai, and the same was not taken on file. 11.The Learned counsel the Appellant/Petitioner seeks in aid of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujraj reported in 2003 [1] CTC 175 at page 180, whereby and whereunder in paragraph Nos.11 to 14, it is observed and laid down as follows:- “Valuable Articles and Currency Notes (11). With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in Police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest. (12). In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest. (12). For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the Complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the Complainant after:- (1) preparing detailed proper Panchnama of such articles; (2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles could be produced if required at the time of trial; and (3) after taking proper security. (13). For this purpose, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The Court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the Complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the Court under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. to impose any other appropriate condition. (14). In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the Complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the Court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to kept in Police custody, it would be open to the S.H.O. after preparing proper Panchnama to keep Supreme Today With All High Courts Page 4 of 6 such articles in a bank locker. In any case, suits articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the Court may direct that such articles be handed over back to the Investigating Officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the Investigating Officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purpose of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed.” 12. At this juncture, this Court worth recollects and recalls the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Prakash Sharma V. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1282, at special page 1283, wherein in paragraph 4, it is observed as follows: “4. Section 457 covers the facts of the present case. At this juncture, this Court worth recollects and recalls the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Prakash Sharma V. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1282, at special page 1283, wherein in paragraph 4, it is observed as follows: “4. Section 457 covers the facts of the present case. The Police have recovered a considerable sum of money from the appellant and the money is stated to be seized in connection with an offence registered against an accused person, namely, Shri Bansi Lal. Whether the appellant himself will be a witness or an accused is not possible to state at the present moment according to the counsel for the State. Be that as it may, the situation is squarely covered by sec. 457, Cr. P.C. However, the fact that the court has power to dispose of property seized by the police but not yet produced before the court does not mean that the Special Judge must always release such property to the person from whom the property has been recovered, especially when the stage of the case is in suspicion, the investigation is not over and charge-sheet has not yet been laid. The court has to be circumspect in such a situation before releasing the property. While we reverse the decision of the courts below that the Special Judge had no power to release the seized property, we should not be taken to mean that whenever the claimant asks for the property back, he should be given back the said property. That has to be decided on its own merits in each case and the discretion of the court has to be exercised after due consideration of the interests of justice including the prospective necessity of the production of these seized articles at the time of the trial. If the release of the property seized will, in any manner, affect or prejudice the course of justice at the time of the trial, it will be a wise discretion to reject the claim for return.” 13. As far as the present case is concerned, the case property, viz., the gold ingots, were seized from the accused. In law, the ownership of the properties is to be established in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. That apart, the said gold ingots are material objects to be marked in the trial of the main case. In law, the ownership of the properties is to be established in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. That apart, the said gold ingots are material objects to be marked in the trial of the main case. As a matter of fact, the Appellant/Petitioner/Defacto Complainant has to establish his ownership in respect of the ‘Gold Ingots’ in issue at the time of final disposal of the main Criminal Case. At this stage, the petition filed by the Petitioner/Appellant before the trial court is too premature and not per se maintainable in the eye of law, in the considered opinion of this Court. 14. Further, the view taken by the trial court as well as the first appellate court in dismissing Crl.M.P. 138[A] of 2011 and Crl.R.C. No. 8/2011 do not suffer from any material infirmities or patent illegalities in the eye of law. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal fails. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the present Criminal Appeal will not preclude the Appellant/Complainant to prove his ownership in regard to the gold ingots before the trial court at the time of conclusion of the trial of the main case and to seek appropriate remedy in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, if he so desires/advised.