VEERASAMI CHETTIAR Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order regarding return of property. On 21-41982, there was a theft of three jewels weighing 20 sovereigns in total from the house of one Veerasami. Upon complaint by the latter, a case was registered as crime No. 70 of 1982 by the Thanjavur Police Station. On investigation it was found that the jewels were taken away by Ilango, son of Veerasami himself. Upon the statement of Ilango, the jewels were recovered on 24-4-1982 and sent to court. On 3-6-1982 Ilango pleaded guilty of the offence and was accordingly convicted.

(2.) Thereupon Veeraswami filed an application for return of the jewels stolen from his house. The Magistrate conducted an enquiry under S.452 Cr.P.C. found that Veerasami, the revision petitioner herein is the rightful owner entitled to the return of the property. However, he ordered the jewels, to be sent to the Gold Control Officer in accordance with the circular P. Dis. No. 205 of 1984 dated 24-10-1984, of this court.

(3.) The case of the revision petitioner is that a circular of the High Court cannot run against the provisions of the Cri. P.C. but can only give effect to the provisions of the Code and the Rules framed thereunder and secure the ends of justice. It is therefore argued that neither the Gold Control Act nor any other rules formed thereunder enjoin the code to forward the jewels to the Gold. Control officer. It is further added that as per S.110 of the Gold Control Act 1968, it is the duty of the Police Officer to inform the Control Officer or to cause the gold to be conveyed to him and that in the absence of any such prayer by the Police Officer, the court should exercise its power under S.452 Cr. P.C. for the disposal of the property. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further place reliance on a decision of this Court in Cr. M.P. 2697 and 3481 of 1986 dated 23-4-1986 and also on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Harayna in R.L. Kapania v. Mahilal 1978-Cur LJ Cri 54 which has also been referred to in the decision first quoted.