ORDER : 1. As these revisions are connected on factual matrix, they are tagged together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Several persons placing their faith on two Pawn Brokers viz. G.P. Gold and Tamil Gold have pledged their gold jewels with them and got money for interest. They were also issued with pawn tickets. These pawn brokers re-pledged the jewels with some Non Banking Financial Companies (NBFC) such as Muthoot Finance and Manapuram Finance for higher interest. In this way the Pawn Brokers have profited themselves. There is no wrong in it. 3. Problem arose when these pawn brokers suddenly disappeared from the scene. There were hue and cry among the pledgors. Naturally they go before police. The District Crime Branch, Theni registered cases in Crime Nos. 55 of 2012 and 1 of 2013. Really it boomeranged. There arose a great deal of work for District Crime Branch, Theni. They were made busy. 4. In the course of investigation, police came to know that huge items of the jewels of pledgors are with the said NBFCs. Naturally police will be interested in seizing them. Now, the NBFCs realized that they have burnt their fingers in accepting the re-pledging of jewels by the accused pawn brokers/pledgers. But police is relentless. They bent upon doing their job. In the circumstances, the NBFCs knocked the doors of this Court. W.P. (MD) Nos. 1090 of 2013 and connected writ petitions were filed. 5. In the W.P.s several directions were issued. For our purpose noticing direction No.14 is suffice. It runs as under:- 14. It is open to the concerned Banks/Non-banking institutions to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrates, six months after the publication in newspaper about the arrangements made to return the jewels in the case of Theni District and three months in the case of Madurai and Dindigul, for the interim custody of the unclaimed jewels (out of the jewelry seized from them by the police) and the Magistrates will pass appropriate orders, taking into account the spirit of the directions and guidelines and to ensure safe custody of the valuable gold ornaments. 6. The Writ Court devised a scheme. A committee was constituted. It was activated. Particulars of persons entitled to the jewels were advertised. However, they were not enthusiastic. There were less takers, less number of claimants. Huge quantity of jewels became unclaimed. 6. The Writ Court devised a scheme. A committee was constituted. It was activated. Particulars of persons entitled to the jewels were advertised. However, they were not enthusiastic. There were less takers, less number of claimants. Huge quantity of jewels became unclaimed. Police has no botheration. Their botheration is to complete the investigation and file the Final Report and was off their hands. But the NBFCs are very much bothered about business venture they had with these accused pawn brokers. 7. In pursuance of the directions (supra) the Manapuram Finance filed property return petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate. In one such petition, the learned Magistrate passed orders giving interim custody of the jewels to Manapuram Finance, imposing several conditions following the guidelines given in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) CTC 175 (SC). Conditions No.4 and 5 are to the effect that the jewels shall be kept as it is and it shall be produced as and when so ordered by the Court. It was not to the liking of Manapuram Finance because the money lent to the accused pawn brokers got locked up and Manapuram Finance could not auction the jewels which were not redeemed. Because condition Nos. 4 and 5 imposed by the learned Magistrate stood in their way. In the circumstances, Manapuram Finance has been constrained to approach this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 8. In Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 542 of 2015, a learned Single Judge of this Court dwelt deep into the matter and passed orders. Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the said order runs as under. 5. It is true that this Court has appointed a Committee based on which a protection was given as early as in 2013 and even after a lapse nearly two years, some of the general public have not shown any interest to approach the Manapuram Finance Company viz., the petitioner to get back the ornaments that are pledged by the intermediaries. 6. 6. Taking note of the submissions of the counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to modify the order dated 14.05.2015 and that it is open to the petitioner to minimize the loss and earn profit by disposing of the jewels in any manner and in case any of the public approaches the petitioner claiming the jewels pledged with them, the petitioner will have to pay the necessary charges due to them viz., the value of the jewels. The conditions No. 4 and 5 imposed by the Judicial Magistrate in Cr. M.P. No. 3244 of 2015 are modified as follows:- The petitioner is entitled to dispose of the property in any manner after furnishing the details of the jewels and weight of the jewels to the police and in case, any of the customer/general public approaches the petitioner, it is the duty of the petitioner to make arrangements to enable the said general public to get their jewels back either in terms of cash or in the form of jewels, on the said customer/general public clearing the arrears due to the petitioner. 9. Now these revisions are directed by Manapuram Finance seeking similar relief as against the prohibition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, in auctioning the repledged jewels. 10. The details of the revisions are tabulated as under:- S. No. Cr. M.P. No. before JM, Theni Date of order in Cr. M.Ps. Quantity of jewels Crl. R.C. No. before this Court 1. 3189/2015 13.05.2015 47 – 850.5 gms. 230/2015 2. 3190/2015 -do­- 20 – 787.8 gms. 231/2015 3. 3241/2015 14.05.2015 16 – 163.4 gms. 232/2015 4. 3242/2015 -do­- 1 – 35.0 gms. 233/2015 5. 3243/2015 -do­- 4 – 45.2 gms. 234/2015 6. 3245/2015 -do-­ 15 – 406.3 gms. 235/2015 Total 103 – 2288.2 gms. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that these revisions are also covered by the orders of the learned Single Judge passed in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 542 of 2015 dated 16.11.2015. He would further submit that Manapuram Finance assures that in case any claimant demand his jewels it will reimburse them either in cash or in the form of jewels and it will see that no claimant is put to any loss. 12. The learned Government Advocate in her submissions was very much concerned with safeguarding the interest of the claimants. 13. 12. The learned Government Advocate in her submissions was very much concerned with safeguarding the interest of the claimants. 13. In this crime though the pawn brokers have took to their heels and they have enjoyed at the cost of others, the pledgors have become victims. In a way Manapuram Finance also become a victim. They are the crime victims. 14. The accused persons exercise their right of defence. Their lawyers are very much interested in their acquittals. Prosecution is very much interested in securing their conviction. Court is very much interested in securing disposal of the cases. Then what about victims of crime. No body cares for them. They undergo untold miseries. It is not only the right of the accused but also the plight of the victim also have to be considered. In the administration of criminal justice the victims are the most forgotten elements. 15. Manapuram Finance is doing business. Pledgors should redeem their jewels, otherwise Manapuram Finance is compelled to auction the jewels, realise its due and do the business. Now in view of the conditions imposed in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, it is not in a position to auction the jewels. 16. Section 451 Cr.P.C. deals with interim custody and also disposal of the property pending conclusion of the trial. That is how in order to protect the interest of the crime victims, in fit and appropriate cases, Courts have started giving permission under Section 451 Cr.P.C. even to sell the property. 17. In K.W. Ganapathy Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 Cri. L.W. 3867, Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2011 (1) MLJ 191 and Lenovo India (P) Ltd. Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Madhavaram Police Station, Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 27812 of 2013 dated 20.11.2013, this was the judicial thinking with reference to Section 451 Cr.P.C. The principles laid down in the said cases squarely applies to the present Manapuram Finance Case. 18. In winding up our discussion, we pass the following order:- (1) All the revisions are allowed. (2) Conditions No.4 and 5 in the property return orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni in Cr. M.P. Nos. 3189, 3190, 3241, 3242, 3243 and 3245 of 2015 are deleted. (3) Revision Petitioner shall furnish particulars of the jewels with description to the Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni. (2) Conditions No.4 and 5 in the property return orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni in Cr. M.P. Nos. 3189, 3190, 3241, 3242, 3243 and 3245 of 2015 are deleted. (3) Revision Petitioner shall furnish particulars of the jewels with description to the Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni. (4) Thereafter, the revision petitioner is permitted to sell the jewels concerned in the said Crl.M.Ps. (5) As and when any person makes claim with required proof with regard to any of the items covered in this revisions, the revision petitioner shall reimburse the said jewel in the form of cash or in the form of jewels as desired by the claimants on payment of the loan amount including interest calculated on the basis of their Pawn Tickets or acceptable documents.