High Court Kerala High Court

Sunildeth vs State Of Kerala & Another on 20 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sunildeth vs State Of Kerala & Another on 20 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 284 of 2009()



1. SUNILDETH
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :20/01/2009

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT, J.
             -------------------------------------------------
                    Crl.M.C. No. 284 of 2009
             -------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009

                                ORDER

The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime

registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.

420 and 467 IPC. The 2nd respondent herein is the accused.

It is the case of the petitioner that the articles belonging to him

which he had allegedly entrusted to the 2nd respondent were all

misappropriated by him. The articles so entrusted and

misappropriated, inter alia, include one air conditioner. That

air conditioner was seized from the house of the 2nd respondent

in the course of investigation. Both the petitioner and the 2nd

respondent staked claims for release of the said air

conditioner. By the impugned common order, the learned

Magistrate took the view that the same can be handed over to

the 2nd respondent; he being the person from whose possession

the air conditioner was admittedly seized. Conditions were

Crl.M.C. No. 284 of 2009 -: 2 :-

imposed including a condition that an amount of Rs.25,000/-

must be deposited as cash security. Accordingly, the air

conditioner was released to the 2nd respondent after he complied

with the conditions imposed. The air conditioner is now in the

possession of the 2nd respondent.

2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned

order. According to the petitioner, he is the real owner of the

air conditioner and, in these circumstances, he is entitled for

release of the air conditioner during the pendency of the

investigation.

3. At the moment and with the available inputs, it appears

to me to be hazardous to authentically resolve the controversy as

to whose version is true and correct. The petitioner has a

grievance that he had produced several documents to show that

he was the owner of the air conditioner; whereas the 2nd

respondent had not produced any authentic documents. Be that

as it may, I take note of the nature of the conditions imposed. A

cash security of Rs.25,000/- has already been insisted which

amount is almost sufficient perhaps to buy such a new air

conditioner now. In these circumstances, I am of the view that

Crl.M.C. No. 284 of 2009 -: 3 :-

the impugned order which more than adequately protects the

interests of the petitioner need not be interfered with. Obviously,

the learned Magistrate was aware of the concerns which the

Supreme court in the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai

v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638). Such conditions have

been imposed evidently to ensure that the air conditioner does

not suffer from damage and deterioration in court custody. In

the anxiety of the learned Magistrate to entrust the air

conditioner to some person on appropriate terms and conditions

the impugned order has been passed. I am not satisfied that the

discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate to release the air

conditioner in favour of the 2nd respondent after adequately and

conveniently securing the interests of all concerned does

warrant interference by invoking the extraordinary inherent

jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Appropriate directions can be

issued by the learned Magistrate at the end of the proceedings

regarding the amount of Rs.25,000/- retained as cash security.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as

the investigation is not undertaken with sufficient speed and

expedition, the petitioner has already approached the learned

Crl.M.C. No. 284 of 2009 -: 4 :-

Magistrate with a petition to issue directions under Sec.156(3)

Cr.P.C. in terms of the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.

(2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)).

5. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed with

the above directions.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

Crl.M.C. No. 284 of 2009 -: 5 :-