High Court Kerala High Court

Santhosh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Santhosh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3790 of 2010()


1. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.CHANDUKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :06/10/2010

 O R D E R
            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
          ===========================
          CRL.M.C.No. 3790   OF 2010
          ===========================

    Dated this the 6th day of October,2010

                     ORDER

Crime 129/2010 of Kunnamangalam Police

Station was registered for the offences under

section 392 read with section 34 of Indian

Penal code on the first information furnished

by Sruthinlal. Case in the First Information

Statement is that petitioner the brother of his

father, is a goldsmith who prepares gold

ornaments. After completing the work of making

gold ornaments, petitioner used to send them

to jewellry Malabar Gold at Ernakulam Jose

junction through the first informant. On

12.4.2010 at about 4.30 a.m, when Sruthinlal

was proceeding to Malabar Gold carrying the

gold ornaments in a bag, in his scooter, three

persons wrongfully restrained him thereafter

robbed the bag containing 1.3 kgms of gold

Crl.M.C.3790/2010 2

ornaments. When a portion of the gold ornaments

were seized and produced before Judicial First

Class Magistrate’s Court, Kunnamangalam, petitioner

filed Annexure B petition under section 451 of Code

of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the

vehicle submitting that he is prepared to furnish

any security. By Annexure C order, learned

Magistrate dismissed the petition. This petition

is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure to quash Annexure C order and to grant

interim custody of the gold ornaments to the

petitioners.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were

heard.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that

subsequently some more gold ornaments were seized

and produced before the learned Magistrate and

after completing the investigation final report has

also been submitted, though offences were not

taken cognizance.

4. Prosecution case itself is that the gold

Crl.M.C.3790/2010 3

ornaments seized were entrusted to the first

informant by the petitioner, to be entrusted to the

Jeweller and on the way it was robbed by the

accused. In such circumstances, petitioner is

entitled to get interim custody of gold ornaments

on conditions. Unfortunately the learned

Magistrate dismissed the petition filed under

section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure without

taking note of the decision of the Apex court in

Jamal Uddin Ahmad v. Abu Saleh Najmuddin (2003(2)

KLT 638). Petitioner has also submitted that he is

prepared to furnish any security. In such

circumstances, Annexure C order can only be

quashed.

Petition is allowed. Annexure C order is

quashed. CMP 4561/2010 is remitted to Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Kunnamangalam for fresh

disposal in accordance with law.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006