IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1957 of 2010() ------------------------- CRMP.1296/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- LALI BABU, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O. BABU, RUBBER VILAS VEEDU, THIMPODU, NEAR N.S. V.H.S. VALACODU.P.O., PUNALUR, VALACODU VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT ORANGE VILLAGE VEEDU, EDAMON.P.O., EDAMON. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1957 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in Crime No.908/2009 of Punalur Police Station for an offence punishable under Sections 379 and 411 read with 34 IPC challenges Annexure A1 order dated 17.7.2009 in Criminal M.P.No.1296/2009. As per the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C claiming interim custody of the 22 items of finished wood of which 21 items are 'Teak' wood and one item is 'Anjili' were refused to be given on interim custody to the petitioner on the observation that if those items are given on interim custody to the petitioner, she might use it for the construction of her house. 2. The specific case of the petitioner is that, after obtaining necessary clearance from the Forest Officials she had kept the finished products in a shed near her house for using the same for the construction of her house Crl.M.C. No.1957 of 2010 : 2 : and while so, those finished products were stolen from the said shed. The 22 items of finished timber were recovered by the police from the accused. So far neither the accused nor any other person has come forward with a petition for interim custody of the timber. The ground stated by the court below for refusing interim custody was that, the petitioner would utilise the wood for the on going construction of her house. I do not think that, the said ground is a valid ground for refusing interim custody. The court below shall allow the prayer in Crl.M.P.No.1296/2009 on the following conditions:- (i) The Court below shall prepare an inventory together with photographs of the 22 items of finished wood at the expense of the petitioner. (ii) The Court below shall get the said items valued by a person conversant with the same. Crl.M.C. No.1957 of 2010 : 3 : (iii) The petitioner shall be called upon to execute a bond equivalent to the value of the wood with two solvent sureties. (iv) The petitioner shall be called upon to give an undertaking that in the event of her loosing the claim over the property or in the event of a successful rival claim being established, she shall compensate the loss by paying the value of the wood as assessed by the court below. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb