Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: CC No. 930/N/2021
Pawan Kumar Singh V/s. BKC
ORDER
1. The present application is filed for return of gold tops and
cash amount of Rs. 1,000/ seized by the BKC police Station in
C.R.No.271/2021 registered u/sec. 420, 34 of IPC.
2. The applicant submitted that his wife lodged FIR vide CR No.
271/2021. The accused had visited his wife. They pretended that they are
employed with Om Sai Enterprises and informed his wife that if she
purchases refrigerator and laptop she will get sewing machine free of cost.
The wife of the applicant i.e. the first informant did not have money with
her. The accused suggested that she can hypothecate her jwellery. Thus,
the first informant gave them her gold ear tops and paid Rs. 1,000/. The
accused had assured to visit again in the evening to get the amount and to
return her ornament. However, the accused did not turn up. Thus, the
first informant lodged FIR. The ornament is seized by the respondent. The
applicant is praying custody of the seized ornament. The applicant
produced on record copy of FIR and Affidavit stating that the ornament
belongs to him.
3. The investigating officer has given no objection to return the
ornament.
4. The say of IO dated 29.10.2021 is vague. Thus, copy of
seizure panchnama was called. It shows seizure of gold ear tops. The said
panchnama does not reflect seizure of any cash amount. The IO produced
another say on 24.12.2021 intimating seizure of gold tops and prayed for
appropriate order, though initially he had given no objection to return the
-- 1 of 2 --
CC No. 930/N/2021
Pawan Kumar Singh V/s. BKC
ornament to the applicant. On perusal of say dated 24.12.2021 and
seizure panchnama, it can be seen that the seized property was shown to
the first informant. The first informant stated that the seized property i.e.
gold tops do not belong to her. The first informant was in possession of
the gold tops which she had given to the accused. She was using said gold
tops in daily course. Thus, she is the best person to state whether the
seized gold tops belong to her or not. She has categorically denied that the
gold tops belong to her. Thus, it is amply clear that the ornament seized
by the police is not the ornament of the first informant. Now the applicant
who is the husband of the first informant is praying that the ornament
belongs to him. However, his version is contradictory to the version of the
first informant. It is the version of the first informant which has to be
taken into account as she was in regular use of the ornament. In this
situation, it will not be proper to release the ornament in favour of the
applicant. Hence, the application is deserves to be rejected. As such
following order is passed:
ORDER
The application is rejected.
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date: 12012021 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --