P GANDHIMATHI Vs. STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in M.P. No. 412 of 2013 in C.C. No. 420 of 2013, dated 14.02.2013, is under challenge before this Court. The petitioner herein filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C., for return of the case property being the gold ingot weighing about 40 grams. The learned Magistrate has chosen to dismiss the petition even though the respondent has expressed endorsement of no objection for return of the property.

(2.) A perusal of the order, dated 13.03.2013, passed in M.P. No. 412 of 2013 reveals that the petition has been dismissed on the following two grounds, viz., (i) the case property produced before the Court do not tally with the property alleged to have been stolen from the de-facto complainant and (ii) there is no document to establish that the complainant is the owner of the property. This dismissal is under challenge in this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the lower court ought not to have expected the proof for identity of the property between the one produced before the Court and the one which is alleged to have been stolen, because the property alleged to have been stolen is admittedly melted and produced in the form of ingot; connecting the chains and the ingot, there is a, confession statement of the accused, where-under the statement is that the chains were snatched from the de-facto complainant and later on, it has been melted and it is in the form of ingot now and therefore, the Court cannot expect clear proof for the identity of the property; what was stolen was two gold chains and what was produced before the Court is ingot and in between, the process of melting has taken place; the lower court has not taken note of the inter-se process involved and has chosen to dismiss the petition.