Undisputed ownership and absence of rival claims justify interim custody of seized property.

The petitioner sought interim return of a gold neck chain weighing 14.900 grams, allegedly stolen from her and later seized following the accused’s arrest and confession.

The police informed the Court that the investigation showed the chain belonged to the petitioner, and the accused had made no rival claim.

The Judicial Magistrate-I, Alandur, dismissed her application because the property had not been produced before the Court.

The High Court allowed the revision and ordered interim custody subject to conditions.

In a later order, the Court directed correction of the satisfaction court named in the original order from Judicial Magistrate-I to Judicial Magistrate-II, Alandur.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim custody of the seized gold chain notwithstanding that it had not been produced before the Magistrate.

Whether the order should identify Judicial Magistrate-II, Alandur, rather than Judicial Magistrate-I, as the court to whose satisfaction the bond and sureties were to be furnished.

The revision was brought under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), as stated in the petition’s prayer.

The judgment also records that the criminal case was registered under Sections 318(4) and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court did not interpret these provisions or cite any precedent; its stated basis for granting interim custody was that the investigation established the petitioner’s ownership and there was no rival claim to the property.

The Magistrate had dismissed the application solely because the chain was not produced before the Court.

The High Court considered that the police accepted the chain belonged to the petitioner and that the accused had made no competing claim.

On those circumstances, it set aside the dismissal and directed interim custody, subject to a bond, photographs being kept on record, a prohibition on altering or alienating the chain, and an undertaking to produce it when required.

The Court later directed correction of the named satisfaction court to Judicial Magistrate-II, Alandur.

Interim custody of the 14.900-gram gold chain was ordered in favour of the petitioner, subject to the specified conditions.

By the subsequent order, the Court directed that the original order be corrected to name Judicial Magistrate-II, Alandur, as the satisfaction court.