IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1193 of 2010()
1. SHREE BALAJI METALLURGICAL INDUSTRIES
... Petitioner
2. DR.P.M.MOOTHADATH, MANAGING PARTNER
3. SMT. SUHITA MOHANSINGH,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :09/04/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1193 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
As per Annexure-A13 order dated 10.3.2010,
permission was granted by the learned Magistrate to
sell the articles seized and produced before the
court, on the ground that the goods are likely to
get deteriorated in value by passage of time.
Learned Magistrate directed petitioner to deposit
the sale proceeds before the court and also to
execute a bond for Rupees Five lakhs with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum. This
petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the direction to
deposit the sale proceeds in court, contending that
if petitioner is to deposit that amount, he will
lose the interest for the amount.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
CRMC 1193/10 2
3. Case of the petitioners is that the articles
seized and produced before the court belong to the
Firm and accused tried to misappropriate the same
and they were seized and produced before the court.
If petitioners are permitted to appropriate the
sale proceeds and ultimately, if it is found that
petitioners are not entitled to the articles, it
will cause much hardship. In such circumstances,
the sale proceeds cannot be allowed to be
appropriated by the petitioners, as canvassed by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
At the same time, there is substance in the
submission that if the amount is to be deposited
and the date of completion of the investigation is
uncertain, as the accused is absconding and if the
amount is kept in court deposit, it will not carry
any interest. But, that difficulty could be over
come by directing the learned Magistrate to deposit
the sale proceeds in a Nationalised Bank in Fixed
Deposit, so that the amount will carry interest.
CRMC 1193/10 3
4. Learned counsel then submitted that learned
Magistrate has not taken necessary precaution as
provided by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai v. State of Gujarat (1003 (2) KLT 1089).
Learned Magistrate should have directed petitioner
to take photographs of the articles ceased and
produced in court, so that, if necessary, it could
be used as evidence.
5. In such circumstances, Annexure-A13 order is
modified providing that before effecting the sale,
petitioners shall prepare proper mahazar of such
articles, take photographs of the articles and
produce them before the court. Learned Magistrate,
on depositing the sale proceeds by the petitioners,
shall invest the same in a Nationalised Bank as
Fixed Deposit.
Petition is disposed accordingly.
9th April, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv