IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 4068 of 2006()
1. OUPADAN GEORGE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.J.DEVADANAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/12/2006
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4068 of 2006
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of December 2006
O R D E R
The petitioner faces allegations of theft under Section 379
I.P.C. According to the defacto complainant, the petitioner had
committed theft of his cattle. F.I.R was registered. It was
realised that the cattle were available in the pound run by the
Panchayat. The petitioner had admittedly handed over the cattle
to the pound. It would appear that the petitioner has an
allegation that the cattle had trespassed into his property. Be
that as it may, in the course of investigation, the cattle were
seized by the police from the pound. The defacto complainant
approached the learned Magistrate for return of the cattle to
him. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order which is
produced as Annexure A1, directed that the cattle be released to
the defacto complainant subject to certain conditions. There is
an observation in that order that the Panchayat is at liberty to
initiate action against the person who had produced the cattle at
the pound to realise the pound charges. Thereafter, the
Panchayat issued notice to the petitioner to pay the pound
Crl.M.C.No.4068/06 2
charges amounting to Rs.5,480/-. The petitioner at that stage,
approached the learned Sessions Judge with a revision petition.
In an interim application filed in the said revision petition, the
learned Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to deposit half the
amount of pound charges before the Panchayat. A stay was
granted against the recovery of the remaining half.
2. The petitioner submits that the direction to him to pay
half the pound charges is not justified. The interim direction
deserves to be interfered with, it is prayed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I
am satisfied that a direction can be issued to the learned
Sessions Judge to dispose of the revision petition as
expeditiously as possible – at any rate within a period of thirty
days from this date. I do not think it necessary to interfere with
the order directing the deposit of 50%. If that deposit is not
made, the only consequence is that steps for recovery will be
initiated by the Panchayat. Whatever remedy the petitioner has
under law against such attempted recovery by the Panchayat,
will certainly be available to him notwithstanding his failure to
comply with the interim order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge.
Crl.M.C.No.4068/06 3
4. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is in these
circumstances allowed in part. The learned Sessions Judge shall
dispose of the revision petition as expeditiously as possible – at
any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date on which a
copy of this order is placed before the learned Sessions Judge.
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel
for the petitioner for production before the learned Sessions
Judge.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.4068/06 4
Crl.M.C.No.4068/06 5
R.BASANT, J
C.R.R.P.No.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF JULY 2006