IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1719 of 2009() ------------------------------ ORDER DATED 02/05/09 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, FORT KOCHI IN CRIME NO.725/2008 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- JOMON GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, CERA ENTERPRISES, MARADU, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, THATHAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT-COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO. 1719 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent. 2. This revision is in challenge of the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi under Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) in crime No.725/08. A few empty drums and a few other drums which allegedly contained bitumen were found as if left abandoned in the property of one Kurian Thampi on 26.11.2008 and the police seized the same as per a mahazar. The matter was reported to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. After some time, petitioner preferred a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate claiming that he had stacked the drums at that place and it contained only waste oil. Petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.11047/09 in this Court for early disposal of the claim petition. In accordance with the direction contained in the order in that case, Sub Divisional Crl.R.P.No.1719/09 2 Magistrate passed the impugned order refusing to give interim custody of the articles seized to the petitioner reason being that Sub Divisional Magistrate was awaiting a further report from the Circle Inspector of Police, Piravom and the report of chemical examination of the sample collected from the drums. 2. Learned counsel submitted that what was prayed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate was only interim custody of the articles but for that further report of the investigating officer or report of chemical examination is not necessary. Petitioner's entitlement for interim custody is to be decided. It is for that purpose the Sub Divisional Magistrate awaited report from the Circle Inspector and the report of the Chemical Examiner. I do not find anything illegal in the action of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. But, the claim of the petitioner has to be decided ultimately after getting such further report from the Circle Inspector and report of Chemical examination. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for appropriate decision after considering the report from the Circle Inspector and the report of the Chemical examiner or Crl.R.P.No.1719/09 3 such other reports as the case may be. The Sub Divisional Magistrate will however, expedite the proceedings and call for report from the officers concerned, at the earliest. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.1719/09 4