IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4400 of 2010()
1. SAJITHA, W/O.JOHN, PANGODAN VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.A.MUJEEB
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :04/01/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS .P.JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.4400 of 2010
---------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011
ORDER
Petitioner, accused No.3 in Crime No.432/2010 of Ernakulam
Town South Police Station challenges that part of the order dated
26.02.2010 on C.M.P.No.1346/2010 of the court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam refusing to return
the sim card and currency notes seized from the petitioner.
Petitioner and others are booked for offences punishable under
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act(for
short “the Act”). The police seized mobile phones, currency notes
for Rs.10,000/- and a vanity bag from the petitioner. Petitioner
sought return of the said articles vide C.M.P.No.1346/2010.
Investigating officer reported that currency notes are required to
prove the offence and that the sim card in the mobile phones are
required to prove the connection between petitioner and other
accused involved in the case. Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate accepting the objection of the prosecution refused to
return the currency notes and the sim card while the mobile
Crl.M.C. No.4400 of 2010 2
phones (without the sim cards) were returned. Learned counsel
submits that it is not necessary to retain the sim card and
currency notes.
2. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. So far as
return of the sim card is concerned, I do not find any reason to
differ from the view taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate. That sim card is required to trace the alleged
connection of petitioner with other accused involved in this case.
3. So far as the currency notes are concerned, I do not find
reason to further retain it. If the intention in retaining the said
currency notes is to prove the case of the prosecution, it could be
done with the mahazar if any prepared by the investigating
officer which mentions the serial number of the currency notes
and by directing petitioner to produce the certified copy of the
currency notes signed by her in substitution of the original notes.
4. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat
(AIR 2003 SC 638) the Supreme Court prescribed the mode of
return of articles taken custody by the investigating agency and
produced in Court. So far as currency notes are concerned, it is
Crl.M.C. No.4400 of 2010 3
sufficient that there is a mahazar showing details of its serial
numbers and denomination and that the original notes are
substituted by certified photocopies signed by the petitioner as
well.
Resultantly this petition is allowed in part to the extent that
the order under challenge refusing to return the currency notes
is set aside, and C.M.P.No.1346/10 to the extent it concerned the
currency notes will stand allowed. Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate shall return the currency notes to the
petitioner on her producing certified photocopies of the said
currency notes(both sides) and signed by her as well and on
ensuring that the mahazar prepared by the police contains details
of the currency notes seized.
THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
ln