IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2149 of 2009()
1. T.M.ABDUL SALAM, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MUHAMMED ABDUL NOOR,
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, S/O.KAMMALI,
4. HARIZ, S/O.SAITHALAVI,
5. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.C.KHALID
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :20/01/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.NO.2149 OF 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated 20th January 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner filed C.M.P.7831/2008
under Section 451 of Code of Criminal
Procedure for interim custody of
Rs.10,00,000/- out of the money seized and
produced in crime No.546/2008 of
Kuttippuram Police Station contending that
Rs.10,00,000/- was deposited by him before
the accused and it was not returned and
therefore, he is entitled to that amount
out of Rs.1,08,92,920/- seized. Petitioner
sought interim custody of the amount. By
order dated 5/6/2009 petition was
dismissed. This petition is filed under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
to quash the said order and to grant
interim custody of the amount.
Crmc 2149/09
2
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
3. Learned counsel argued that order
of the learned Magistrate itself shows that
investigating officer admitted that Rs.10 Lakh
was deposited by the petitioner with the
accused and in such circumstances, learned
Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the
petition. It is argued that money is for
circulation and if interim custody is given
petitioner could utilise the money and he is
prepared to furnish any security and therefore,
the amount is to be released.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the petition contending that though
Rs.98,30,46,000/- was collected by the accused
only Rs.1,08,92,920/- could be seized and
Crmc 2149/09
3
petitioner alone cannot claim that amount. At
best, he will only be entitled to a
proportionate amount and in such circumstances,
it cannot be allowed.
5. In view of the statement of the
learned counsel that petitioner alone raised
the claim and other depositors did not
approach the learned Magistrate, Public
Prosecutor directed to file a statement of
investigating officer. Statement is filed to
the effect that 824 persons had approached the
police to get back their money and total
amount claimed comes to Rs.14,98,25,000/- out
of which only Rs.1,08,92,920/- was seized. It
is also submitted that accounts of the accused
was also freezed and including the freezed
amount it would come to Rs.Five crores and if
that amount is divided among the depositors
Crmc 2149/09
4
and petitioner will get only 1/5326 out of Five
crores, which would only be Rs.9,388/-. It is
also submitted that two persons had already
approached Sub court to get back the amount.
5. As rightly pointed out by the
learned Public Prosecutor, when the total
amount misappropriated by the accused is above
98 crores and what was seized is only Rs.1
crore and the claim was raised before the
police by 824 persons for Rs.14,98,25,000/-,
interim custody of Rs.10,00,000/- cannot be
given to the petitioner for the reason that
he approached the learned Magistrate first.
Petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil
court for getting the amount.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.