Judgment : 1. This revision challenges the order of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2514 of 2013 on 18.12.2013. 2. The petitioner is an accused in case registered in Crime No.313 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent for offences under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 408 and 477-A IPC. The accusation against the petitioner is that he, as an employee of the de facto complainant shipping agency company, committed the above said offences and occasioned loss to the tune of almost Rs.1 crore to the de facto complainant. The petitioner moved a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. and the same was dismissed by this Court. The case was registered on 08.08.2013. The petitioner was arrested on 05.09.2013 and produced before Court the next day. He was taken into judicial custody on 17.09.2013 and pursuant to search of his premises on 18.09.2013, certain jewels came to be seized. Such seized articles were produced before learned Judicial Magistrate on 04.12.2013. The petitioner/accused moved a petition for return of property. Such petition in Crl.M.P.No.2514 of 2013 has been dismissed by the Court below. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and learned counsel for second respondent. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the jewels which were seized at the petitioner's residence belongs to his wife, they having been purchased by the petitioner over a long period of time. The same have nothing to do with the offence alleged in the case. 5. Learned counsel for second respondent submits that the jewellery seized are proceeds of crime alleged by the de facto complainant. 6. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) raises objection placing reliance on the counter filed by the first respondent police and informs that the confessional statement of the petitioner admits of the position that the jewels are proceeds of the crime alleged. However, it is admitted position that such admission of the petitioner/accused was not contained in the first confession recorded from him but in a subsequent statement. 7. If it is the prosecution allegation that the jewels seized at the hands of the petitioner were proceeds of crime resort is to be had to Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. However, it is admitted position that such admission of the petitioner/accused was not contained in the first confession recorded from him but in a subsequent statement. 7. If it is the prosecution allegation that the jewels seized at the hands of the petitioner were proceeds of crime resort is to be had to Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. This Court directs the Court below to place the jewels in the custody of the petitioner on the following terms : i. the Court below shall cause photographs of such jewels and record panchanama thereof. Such photographs shall be attested and countersigned by the complainant and the petitioner; ii. the petitioner shall not alter the jewels in any manner till adjudication is over; and iii. the petitioner shall undertake under affidavit that he will produce the jewels as and when required by the trial Court. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The order of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2514 of 2013 on 18.12.2013 is set aside.