Dismissed

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Priyalal, Aged 47 S/O Gopal v. State of Kerala Represented by Its Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Pin – 68

Kerala HC13 Sept 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/348/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision Petition filed by Manappuram Finance Ltd seeking interim custody of seized stolen gold ornaments under CrPC was dismissed. The Court held that stolen property cannot be claimed as of right by the pledgee.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody of seized gold ornaments denied; revision petition dismissed.

What the court decided

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Represented by Its Authorized… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 348 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.MP 721/2022 IN CRIME NO.571/2022 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAPURAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/CLAIM PETITIONER:

¶8

MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD REGD.OFFICE AT MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPAD, THRISSUR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KOLLAM AREA 4, KOLLAM – PIN 691311. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. PRIYALAL, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O GOPALAN NAIR.

¶9

BY ADV B.S.SURESH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.

¶12

BY ADV.M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.348 of 2023

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 13^th day of September, 2023

¶18

The revision petitioner is a Non Banking Finance Company. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 27.08.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.721 of 2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pathanapuram, whereby the revision petitioner's application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for getting interim custody of gold ornaments weighing 45.76 grams stands rejected.

¶19

2 . The revision petitioner would contend that one Mr.Sijil Krishnan availed a gold loan for an amount of Rs.1,63,000/- from the revision petitioner by pledging 45.76 grams of gold ornaments, on 18.05.2022. An amount of Rs.1,88,000/- is now due to the revision petitioner from Mr.Sijil Krishnan.

¶20

3 . On 17.06.2022, the Station House Officer,

¶21

Pathanapuram Police Station came to the branch of the revision petitioner-Company and seized the gold pledged by Mr.Sijil

¶22

¶23

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.348 of 2023

¶24

Krishnan. The revision petitioner states that on enquiry, the revision petitioner came to know that one Mr.Ramachandran Nair, who was running a business in the name of Pathanapuram Bankers, has filed a case in the Pathanapuram Police Station alleging theft in his office on 14.05.2022. Accused No.1 gave a confession statement to the effect that the gold ornaments stolen from the Pathanapuram Bankers were handed over to one Mr. Sijil

¶25

Krishnan, who had in turn pledged gold to the revision petitionerCompany. The revision petitioner, therefore, approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pathanapuram for interim custody of the gold ornaments under Section 451 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

4 . The Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court considered the petition filed by the revision petitioner and noted that the gold ornaments involved are stolen property. The gold ornaments belong to Pathanapuram Bankers. In that view of the matter, the application filed by the revision petitioner was rejected. It is

¶27

¶28

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.348 of 2023

¶29

aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2022 that the revision petitioner has approached this Court.

¶30

5 . Counsel for the revision petitioner would urge that the revision petitioner is entitled to release of the gold ornaments recovered by the police. Unless the gold ornaments released to the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner would suffer heavy loss. Counsel for the revision petitioner further argued that possession of the gold ornaments was with the revision petitioner in the light of bond and no one is having any right or claim over the said gold ornaments. As the revision petitioner has lien over those gold ornaments, interim custody of gold ornaments is liable to be given to the revision petitioner.

¶31

6 . Counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18267 of 2013, wherein this Court held that the Magistrate shall take note of the fact that gold ornaments are pledged with the revision petitioner and the

¶32

¶33

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.348 of 2023

¶34

Magistrate shall see that ultimate orders passed in the matter shall not in any way prejudice the right of the claimant to hold the gold or ornaments as security for repayment of the loan amount.

¶35

7 . I have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent.

¶36

8 . The matter involves an offence under Sections 457, 461 and 380 of IPC and the prosecution case is that on 14.05.2022, accused 1 and 2 trespassed into the money lending bank Pathanapuram Bankers situated in Janatha Junction, Pathanapuram, broke open two lockers and committed theft of Rs.4,00,000/- and gold ornaments valuing Rs.38,00,000/-. During interrogation, the 1 st accused gave a confession statement that he entrusted the stolen articles to one Mr. Sijil Krishnan, the 3 rd accused. When the said Sijil Krishnan was interrogated, he stated that the gold ornaments were pledged at various financial

¶37

¶38

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.348 of 2023

¶39

institutions. On the basis of the information received, 45.76 grams

¶40

of gold ornaments were seized from the revision petitioner's institution.

¶41

9 . The specific allegation of the prosecution is that the gold ornaments belong to Pathanapuram Bankers and it was stolen by accused 1 to 3 in the crime. Since it was subsequently pledged with the revision petitioner's Company, I am of the firm view that the revision petitioner cannot as of right claim interim custody of the gold ornaments, which are stolen property. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 27.08.2022 in Crl.MP No.721 of 2022 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanapuram.

¶42

The Criminal Revision Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

ams

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Priyalal, Aged 47 S/O Gopal v. State of Kerala Represented by Its Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Pin – 68

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Priyalal, Aged 47 S/O Gopal v. State of Kerala Represented by Its Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Pin – 68

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Seven Ocean Maritime Agencies Vs Mannamparambil John Job

Mohammed Shihab @Shihabshah , Vs State of Kerala

Hamza Haji Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Rajesh Babu Vs James George

Smt. Radhika M. Vs Kerala State Election Commission

Jayakumar Vs the State of Kerala