B K ABDULLA Vs. MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to quash the order dated 20-3-2013 in Cri. R.P. No. 51 of 2011 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.

(2.) Petitioner 1-B.K. Abdulla lodged a complaint before Surathkal Police Station alleging that his gold ornaments and that of petitioner 2 his relative are stolen by one Mayyadi and his wife Jubeda. A crime came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 407 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation charge-sheet is also filed for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, gold ornaments were seized from the Muthoot Finance Limited and Sree Gokamanatha Co-operative Bank Limited. The seizure has been reported to the Magistrate. The complainant-B.K. Abdulla and petitioner 2 filed an application under Section 457 of Cr. P.C. for interim custody of the articles on the ground that they are the articles belonging to them. Inspite of objection by the prosecutor the application came to be allowed and the learned Magistrate ordered to give interim custody to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, Muthoot Finance Limited-respondent 1 herein preferred Cri. R.P. No. 51 of 2011 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore. Upon hearing both the parties, the revision petition came to be partly allowed and the learned Sessions Judge ordered that the gold ornaments be kept in safe custody of the Trial Court till conclusion of the trial.

(3.) Admittedly, these gold ornaments were voluntarily handed over by these petitioners to the accused-Mayyadi and his wife Jubeda. Petitioners were assured with some profits. They pledged the same before the Muthoot Finance Limited and Sree Gokamanatha Co-operative Bank Limited, and obtained loan amount from the bank. If the gold ornaments are ordered to be returned to the petitioners during the pendency of the proceedings, the interest of both the financial institutions would be affected. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Sessions Judge to keep the gold ornaments in safe custody of the Trial Court appears to be just and proper. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition so as to exercise power to quash the impugned order.