JUDGMENT : (P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.) The appellant is the defacto complainant in Crime No.365 of 2024 of Vilappilsala Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 409 , 420 and 381 of the Indian Penal Code . The accused in the case is one Kiran. The accused was an employee in the jewellery of the appellant. The allegation is that the accused had stolen 350 gms of gold worth Rs.24 lakhs from the jewellery of the appellant. 2. The first respondent filed the writ petition from which the writ appeal arises challenging a notice issued by the investigating officer invoking Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), directing them to produce the gold ornaments pledged by the accused with them at their Peyad Branch, as the said gold ornaments were found to have been stolen by the accused from the jewellery of the appellant. Ext.P4 is the notice issued by the Investigating Officer in this regard. The appellant was arrayed as the additional third respondent in the writ petition. 3. A statement has been filed by the investigating officer in the writ petition stating that the stolen articles were recovered from the Peyad and Vattiyoorkavu branches of the first respondent and the same were later released to the respective branches of the first respondent for custody. 4. The learned Single Judge was under the impression that the first respondent was directed, in terms of Ext.P4 notice, only to produce the document showing the pledging of gold ornaments with them. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of clarifying that the first respondent need not produce the gold ornaments pursuant to the notice and they need only produce the document showing the pledging of gold ornaments with them. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that when a recovery of stolen articles is effected, it is the duty of the investigating officer to produce the same before the jurisdictional court so that the defacto complainant can claim interim custody of the same invoking Section 451 of the Code. According to the learned counsel, inasmuch as the investigating officer has not adopted the said course and inasmuch as it is clarified by this Court that the first respondent need not produce the stolen articles before the investigating officer, the appellant is deprived of his right to prefer an application for interim custody of the stolen articles. According to the learned counsel, inasmuch as the investigating officer has not adopted the said course and inasmuch as it is clarified by this Court that the first respondent need not produce the stolen articles before the investigating officer, the appellant is deprived of his right to prefer an application for interim custody of the stolen articles. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Crl.M.C.No.667 of 2015 , argued that in the light of Section 173 of the Indian Contract Act, the first respondent is entitled to retain the goods pledged with them in their capacity as a pawnee. According to the learned Senior Counsel, there is therefore, no illegality in the impugned order. It was, however, conceded by the learned Senior Counsel that the learned Single Judge has committed a mistake in noting the direction contained in Ext.P4 notice. Although the notice directs the first respondent to produce the stolen articles before the investigating officer, the learned Single Judge, as discernible from the order, was under the impression that the direction therein was only to produce the document showing the pledging of gold ornaments with them. Inasmuch as the impugned order is vitiated by the said mistake, the learned Senior Counsel alternatively submitted to remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the stolen articles recovered by the investigating officer have been released to the Managers of the respective branches of the first respondent on an undertaking that the same will be produced as and when directed by the police or court. 8. As conceded by the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent, the investigating officer has, in fact, directed the first respondent to produce the ornaments pledged by the accused with them so as to enable the investigating officer to recover the same. The relevant portion of Ext.P4 notice reads thus: There cannot be any doubt that the investigating officer has the prerogative to seize the gold ornaments and produce the same before the jurisdictional court when it is revealed that the accused in the case who has wrongfully gained the custody of the articles, has deposited the same with the financial institution. The relevant portion of Ext.P4 notice reads thus: There cannot be any doubt that the investigating officer has the prerogative to seize the gold ornaments and produce the same before the jurisdictional court when it is revealed that the accused in the case who has wrongfully gained the custody of the articles, has deposited the same with the financial institution. It is all the more so since the jurisdictional court is empowered, in terms of the provision contained under Section 451 of the Code, to make an arrangement for the proper custody, pending conclusion of trial or enquiry. The right of the defacto complainant to seek release of the articles allegedly stolen from him pending enquiry or trial, cannot be doubted. No doubt, the first respondent is also entitled as a pawnee of the gold articles to seek release of the articles under Section 451 of the Code as clarified by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.667 of 2015 . It is for the jurisdictional court to take a decision as to who among them is best suited to possess the seized articles, till the conclusion of the enquiry or trial. In the circumstances, we have no doubt in our minds that the impugned judgment would certainly prejudice the right of the appellant to seek interim custody of the stolen articles. In the said circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ appeal is disposed of directing the investigating officer to produce the recovered articles before the jurisdictional court, and permitting the appellant as also the first respondent to prefer applications for interim custody of the same invoking Section 451 of the Code.