Unlike any other robbed valuable, gold jewellery and silver articles are susceptible to be converted into ingots thereby making it difficult to prove their identity. Nevertheless, the Madras High Court Bench here has held that lower courts could give interim custody of such ingots, recovered by the police, to victims of the crime.
“In property offences, problem arises when the accused converts the ‘case property’ into a different form. Sometimes, the accused convert jewels into ingots for convenience, easy handling and disposal. Even in such cases if the ownership of the case properties could be traced to the de facto complainant, he can be given custody of the same prescribing certain reasonable conditions,” the court said.
The order was passed on a petition filed by a jeweller, B. Loganathan, who reportedly lost around seven kilograms of gold jewellery and huge amount of cash when robbers posing to be police officials waylaid a private bus at Lalapettai bridge in Karur district on October 21, 2013 and relieved two of his relatives of the cash and jewels.
During the course of investigation, the police recovered gold ingots totally weighing 3,228 grams; six gold chains weighing 136.560 grams each and Rs.11.33 lakh from 26 different people including those who were part of the gang that robbed the jewels and a few Kerala and Coimbatore based jewellers who had allegedly purchased the stolen properties.
However, on March 22 this year, a Judicial Magistrate in Kulithalai refused to give interim custody of the recovered properties to the victim on the ground that the police were yet to complete investigation in the case and hence the present revision petition.
Setting aside the Magistrate’s order, Justice P. Devadass said a victim of crime would get “vexed” if he was not given interim custody of recovered properties.
“The reasoning of the learned Judicial Magistrate that investigation is pending, some of the accused are absconding, non-bailable arrest warrants have been issued against few others and that the case properties are yet to be marked are not at all germane for the disposal of property return petitions,” the judge said.
He directed the Magistrate to hand over all the recovered properties to the petitioner after obtaining a bond for Rs.76.33 lakh with two sureties for an equal sum.
The Magistrate was also ordered to take photographs of the jewels before giving them away and direct the petitioner to produce the jewels as and when necessary.
“In property offences, problem arises when the accused converts the ‘case property’ into a different form”
