Final Order 1

Order Details: Order below Ex-1
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.No.1791/M/2025
ORDER BELOW EXH.1
1] This is an application filed by applicant Mayuresh Ramchandra
Masurkar for return of property i.e. cash amount of Rs.48000/- and one
gold bracelet of 14 grams worth Rs.1,20,000/- seized by Chembur Police,
during investigation of C.R. No.288/2025.
2] It is contended that the applicant is the original complainant.
He lodged the above FIR against Mrs. Nandatai, a domestic help employed
by him at his residence, Chembur. Since she is prime suspect, her name is
informed to the police at the time of lodging of FIR itself. Accordingly, she
is arrested by the police on 20.06.2025. She has been interrogated during
PCR, wherein she disclosed about the stolen property. The stolen property
seized at the instance of the accused. It includes cash amount of
Rs.48000/- and one gold bracelet of 14 grams worth Rs.1,20,000/-. It is
further contended that retention of the seized property at police station
would not be fruitful. Seized property belongs to the applicant. He require
it. Therefore, the applicant is seeking interim custody thereof.
3] Called the say of I.O., A.P.P., Accused and Siddhivinayak
Jewellrs, Govandi. I.O. and APP do not have any objection for grant of
application. Likewise, the jeweller namely, Prabir Mondal appeared and
also filed his no objection on record. So far as reply of accused is
concerned, she raised objection and prayed that instead of return of seized
property to the applicant, it may be kept in the custody of the Court till
final pleading and disposal of the case.
4] Perused the application, say filed thereon and seizure
panchnama. It would show that the applicant herein is the original
informant, who lodged report against Nandatai Khandekar for offence
punishable under Section 306 of BNS vide Cr.No.288/2025. The stolen
property is described therein. It include bracelet of 14 grams of yellow
-- 1 of 3 --
:2:
metal worth Rs.1,20,000/- and cash amount of Rs.48,000/-. Denomination
of currency notes is also provided.
5] The report of I.O. would disclose that during investigation both
properties, mentioned in the FIR are came to be discovered at the instance
of accused. The copy of disclosure statement of the accused, in presence of
panch witnesses and discovery panchnama are placed on record. On the
basis of that panchnama it become clear that the bracelet is seized from
Siddhivinayak Jeweller shop and cash amount is seized from the custody
of accused Nandatai. Therefore, say of above both persons are also called.
Out of them, the jeweller’s shop owner namely Prabir Mondol filed his no
objection in respect of grant of application. On this point learned Advocate
for applicant also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of
Pankaj
Akshan Vs. State (decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court) and
State of
Maharashrtra Vs. Vishwanath (AIR 1979 sc 1825) relevant points are
discussed therein. Here also the form of jewellery not remained same.
Although stolen property was the bracelet, nature thereof has been changed
and whatever discovered / recovered from the custody of jeweller is gold
bar/ingot. However, prima facie ownership of the applicant in respect of
that gold bar is well established on the basis of reply of I.O. and the
panchnama on record. It is nowhere disputed by the concerned jeweller.
Therefore, applicant is entitled to get interim custody thereof.
6] So far as cash amount is concerned, since it has ben seized
from the custody of accused Nandatai, her say is also called. As seen
earlier, it is nowhere stated in the reply that the said Nandatai wants
interim custody of the cash amount by extending ownership claim thereon.
On the other hand, the prayer made therein would show that the accused
Nandatai simply wants to keep the recovered muddemal property in the
safe custody till final hearing and disposal of the case.
-- 2 of 3 --
:3:
7] Thus, the description of the cash amount i.e. 96 currency notes
of rs.500/- match with the description of the cash amount mentioned in the
FIR. The FIR is not lodged against unknown person, but directly as against
the accused Nandatai, because the informant applicant was very much sure
that there is no one else, who is having access to his house. Thus, the prima
facie entitlement of the applicant in respect of that cash amount is also
established. It is sufficient to handover the muddemal property to the
applicant towards interim custody. Therefore, question does not arise to
keep the muddemal property in the Court till decision of the matter. Even
otherwise, the applicant can be directed to bring the muddemal property
before the court, as and when directed. Therefore, issuing such direction
would suffice the purpose. However, there is no reason to keep the
property in the Court, when the applicant has successfully established that
he is entitled to get interim custody thereof. Hence, I pass following order.
-: O R D E R :-
1) Application is allowed.
2) Seized muddemal property i.e. cash amount of Rs.48,000/-, be
handed over to the applicant on executing indemnity bond.
3) Seized muddemal property i.e. gold bar be handed over to the
applicant on executing indemnity bond.
4) Applicant shall execute indemnity bond of Rs.1,68,000/- for
both muddemal property.
5) The applicant shall produce the seized property as and when
directed by the Court.
Date :- 07/10/2025
Place:-Kurla
(D. J. Endait)
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
11th Court, Kurla, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --