Muthoot Finance Ltd., Vs Smt. Mamatha W/o Venkatramaiah @ Raju,

Office objections are over-ruled.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in

the above said two petitions and learned SPP-II for the

respondent-State. Perused the records.

It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.2

police in Criminal Petition No.8015/2016 have

registered a case on the complaint lodged by one

Smt.Mamatha on 20.9.2014 in Crime No.266/2014 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC against one Raju

who alleged to have committed theft of some gold

articles from Nano Car on 18.9.2014. Subsequent to the

complaint lodged, the police on information about the

said theft from the statement of one

Sri.H.C.Jagannathrao, the Head Constable of Jayanagar

police who caught hold the person by name Raju in

connection with some other case and the said Raju

disclosed about the case which the police have

subsequently registered in Crime No.300/2014 under

Section 41(d) and 102 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 379 of IPC.

In connection with this case, the police have recovered

certain gold articles on the information of the said

accused Raju, from the petitioner in Criminal Petition

No.8015/2016 i.e. Muthoot Finance Limited.

Both the petitioners in the above petitions i.e.

Muthoot Finance Limited as well as Smt.Mamatha have

filed applications under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.

for release of the said articles to their custody. During

the pendency of the proceeding, the Trial Court has

rejected the applications vide order dated 28.11.2014

stating that the material placed before the Court are not

sufficient at this stage to establish the ownership of the

said article by Smt.Mamatha. Further it is shown in the

records that at the instance of the accused some jewels

were seized from the Muthoot Finance Limited.

Therefore, the facts are hazy with regard to the

ownership and possession of the said articles by the

competent persons to release the same in favour of any

one of them. Being aggrieved of the said orders, both the

petitioners have filed Criminal Revision Petition in

Crl.R.P. No.681/2014 and Crl.R.P.No.447/2015. The

56th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru, after hearing both the parties passed a

detailed order rejecting the said revision petitions and

on facts the Court has given a finding that the said

Smt.Mamatha has not established the ownership over

the said articles at that particular stage. Further, there

is a doubt with regard to return of the articles to any of

the persons at the initial stage. Therefore, the Court has

rejected their revision petitions.

On careful perusal of the entire materials on

record both the Courts have expressed their views with

regard to a statement given by Smt.Mamatha at the

initial stage and subsequent statement made by her and

also with regard to the receipts produced by her before

the Court and expressed its doubt with regard to the

earlier possession and ownership over those articles

seized in this case. Perhaps both the Courts must have

felt that the ownership and possession of the golden

articles earlier to the theft has to be established by

Smt.Mamatha during the course of full fledged trial.

Therefore, for that reason, the Trial Court has dismissed

the applications.

The learned counsel for the petitioner Muthoot

Finance Limited has submitted that when there is

doubtful circumstance with regard to the ownership, the

Court need not give any finding on the ownership of the

articles, it simply return the same to the person from

whom the said articles were recovered. However, it is

clear from the case that on the information of the

accused Raju and his instance jewels were recovered.

Further, added to that, there is some discrepancy with

regard to the explanation by said Smt.Mamatha as to

how many of the articles were the subject matter of

theft, because both the Courts have compared the

statement given by Muthoot Finance Ltd. and the

receipts produced and subsequent statement of

Smt.Mamatha. Therefore, the Court felt some doubt to

release the said articles in favour of either of the parties.

When both the Courts have relied upon certain

factual aspects and rejected the application, this Court

cannot reverse the same and grant relief to any one of

the party. No prejudice or injustice would be caused to

any of the parties, if those articles are ordered to be

kept in the safe custody of the Trial Court. After

recording evidence, the Court has to give a finding with

regard to who is entitled for the custody of those

articles. Hence, I pass the following ORDER

Both the Criminal Petitions are hereby

dismissed. However, the Trial Court is hereby directed

to take care of those articles which are seized and keep

them in safe custody till disposal of the case and after

recording of the evidence the Court has to give a finding

after hearing the rival claimants with regard to who is

entitled for return of those articles and thereafter pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law.