Recorded admission and beneficiary relationship justified return of seized jewellery; writ interference was refused despite alleged procedural irregularity.

The Court declined writ interference where jewellery was returned to the petitioner's daughter-in-law after a search, because the petitioner had admitted at the time of search that part of the jewellery in the locker belonged to her. The Department relied on that recorded statement and reopened the locker in the presence of the petitioner and the daughter-in-law. Even if the manner of return involved some procedural irregularity, the admission and the beneficiary's relationship were treated as sufficient grounds to uphold the departmental action.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should interfere with the Department's action of returning jewellery to the petitioner's daughter-in-law after the search, in view of the petitioner's recorded statement and the alleged irregularity in procedure.

Analysis: The petitioner had admitted at the time of search that part of the jewellery in the locker belonged to his daughter-in-law. The department acted on that statement when the locker was later opened in the presence of the petitioner and the daughter-in-law. Even assuming some irregularity in the manner of return, the Court treated the admission and the relationship of the beneficiary as sufficient reason not to exercise writ interference.

Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the departmental action.

---