K.V. Subramania Chettiar vs The Inspector of Police, Kathumannarkoil Police Station and Another

Janarthanam, J.—The Sub Inspector of Police, Kattumannarkoil filed a final report in Crime No. 36/84 before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Chidambaram against one Kannan and one Dhavamani accused 1 and 2 respectively for the alleged offences under Sections 457, 380

and 414 read with Section 109 IPC. Both the accused, being old offenders, a charge u/s 75 IPC had also been there.

Both the accused, after having been furnished with copies of the records and given adequate opportunity of defending them, voluntarily admitted

their guilt. Consequently, both of them were found guilty of the offence, with which they stood charged, convicted there under and sentenced to

certain terms of imprisonment, about which there is no concern for the present case. Learned Magistrate also passed an order directing the return

of the properties seized in the case to one Anbalagan (the 2nd Respondent herein) who is entitled to the possession thereof. Such an order had

been passed on the 26th July 1985.

From K.V. Subramania Chettiar, the revision Petitioner herein, who had been pointed out by accused 1 as the person to whom he handed over

certain stolen properties made of silver four kilograms of silver were recovered on his admission that he purchased the said Properties from

accused 1. The said properties were recovered on 2.3.1985 and despite such recovery he did not at all opt to file any application praying for the

return of those articles seized from him in the trial court, till upto the order passed by the trial Court ordering return of the properties to one

Anbalagan.

He would however file Crl. M.P. No. 227 of 1986 before the Court of Session, Cuddalore, challenging the order of the trial Court in returning

the properties seized to one Anbalagan, claiming to be entitled to the same as owner thereof, only on 9.12.1985 after a delay of nine months.

Learned Sessions Judge, on perusal of the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of the respective learned Counsel, dismissed

the above said Crl. M.P. giving rise to the present revision.

Learned Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner would virtually mount a frontal attack on the impugned order by stating that learned

Sessions Judge took into consideration the materials available on record, inclusive of Section 161L, Code of Criminal Procedure statement given

by the revision Petitioner before the police, without holding an inquiry as to the truth or otherwise of the statement so given by him and in such

State of affairs, he would say, the impugned order can, by no stretch of imagination, be stated to be sustainable in law.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent to 2 would however repel such a submission.

The enquiry to be held for the purpose of passing an order for return of the properties seized by the police cannot at all be stated to be an

enquiry or trial for the purpose of finding out the guilt or otherwise of the accused, in which case alone Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure

statements of the witnesses and the accused will be wholly inadmissible and those statements have to be proved in the manner allowed by law. But

an enquiry for the purpose of return of the properties seized, is of summary nature and what all required to be determined is to find a solution in a

summary way for the return of the property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, without actually going into the finer aspects of evidence

regarding the ownership of the same. In such an enquiry, Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure statement of witnesses and accused are wholly

admissible and those statement can be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the question as to who is entitled to the possession of

the property seized by the police during the course of investigation.

In the instant case, there is no doubt whatever that the revision Petitioner had given a statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure during the

course of investigation to the police candidly admitting the purchase of four kilograms of silver by him from accused 1, who, in turn, was stated to

have given a confession and also pointed out the revision Petitioner as the person, to whom he sold the quantity of silver seized from the custody,

and possession of the revision Petitioner. These are all the materials relied upon by learned Sessions Judge for ordering the return of four kilograms

of silver seized from the revision Petitioner to Anbalagan, from whose shop the said silver and other articles have been stolen. As such, to say that

before ever the statement of the revision Petitioner, stated to have been given by him to the police during the course of investigation, is acted upon,

he ought to have been examined to determine the truth or otherwise of such a statement, as contended by learned Counsel for the revision

Petitioner, cannot at all be countenanced. The impugned order, in this view of the matter, is perfectly justified.

As such, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.