Friends,
I have come across this article in Hindu. Can anyone of you know the the actual judgement this article is referring about? Thanks in advance.
Sai Murali
Tamil Nadu - Madurai 
Ruling on production of stolen property
Mohamed Imranullah S.
| Order to be circulated to all lower courts in the State |
MADURAI: Judicial Magistrates need not insist on production of jewels, currency notes, vehicles and such other articles before directing the police to return them to their owners pending trial in criminal cases, the Madras High Court has ruled.
In the judgement ordered to be circulated to all lower courts in the State, Justice K.N. Basha said, “This court is constrained to state that the learned magistrates are frequently rejecting petitions seeking return of property.”
Such rejection led to “great hardship and irreparable loss to the aggrieved persons in cases of theft of valuable articles and cash. The victims, having already suffered mental agony, are also put to further distress,” he said.
The Judge also recalled that the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat (2003) had laid down certain guidelines on return of property under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The powers under the Section should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously so that the property owners did not suffer owing to misappropriation or because of its remaining unused, the apex court had said.
Written descripttion
It was also stated that the Magistrates could obtain a detailed written descripttion of the articles in a prescribed format and use it as evidence, in lieu of its production, before the court concerned during the course of trial.
Pointing out that a similar order was passed in Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil vs. State of Mysore (1977), Mr. Justice Basha directed all the Magistrates to follow the judgement scrupulously while dealing with return of property.
https://www.hindu.com/2008/11/05/stories/2008110559720300.htm
This is the actual link.
