PONNAMMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is squarely covered by the Apex Court's Judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003 (1) CTC 175 (SC)].

(2.) The de facto complainant aggrieved by the dismissal of her property return petition in Cr.M.P.No.1070 of 2015, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, has directed this revision.

(3.) The de facto complainant belongs to Veerapatti in Thirumayam Taluk in Pudukottai District. On 21.01.2015, A1 and A2 have committed robbery in her house. She was robbed of her gold items. She lodged complaint on 22.01.2015. Thirumayam Taluk Police registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2015 under Section 392 I.P.C. On 11.02.2015, the accused persons were arrested. A1 gave confessional statement vide Section 27 of Evidence Act. In the course of which, jewels concerned in Crime No.12 of 2015, were seized under a Seizure Mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses. In the circumstances, the de facto complainant claimed interim custody of those jewels by filing Cr.M.P.No.1070 of 2015.