IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 178 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.440/2009 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- SYED SAHDHU, S/O.KISMATH SAHIB, PROPRIETOR, M/S.WOOD TRADE, 123 LINGHICHETTY STREET, MANNADI, CHENNAI -1. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MUJEEB RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.178 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 02nd day of February, 2011 ORDER Petitioner challenges Annexure-5, order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ernakulam with respect to a sum of `.7,74,760/- seized by the police under Sec.102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”) from near KSRTC bus stand, Ernakulam in an abandoned state on 20.02.2009 at about 11.45a.m. The Central Police registered Crime No.440 of 2009 and produced the said amount before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Thereon petitioner filed application for custody or release of the said amount which resulted in Annexure-5, order where the Sub Divisional Magistrate has stated that for release of the material object (money) seized petitioner has to make appropriate claim before the Magistrate (Judicial) concerned and hence the application is being rejected. That order is under challenge. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Going by the scheme of Sec.102(3) of the Code a police officer acting under sub section (1) of that section is to forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction Crl.M.C.No.178 of 2011 -: 2 :- and whether the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the court or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the court as to the disposal of the same. The said provision comes in Chapter 7 of the Code dealing with process to compel production of things. That Chapter deals with the power of Judicial Magistrate. It is clear that 'Magistrate' referred to in Sec.102(3) is the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area involved. If that be so the police ought to have produced the material objects before the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area and the final report should have been submitted before that Magistrate. In that view the Sub Divisional Magistrate is correct in directing petitioner to the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction of the area. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that final report is submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi. The Charging Officer shall Crl.M.C.No.178 of 2011 -: 3 :- ensure that final report along with the material objects is brought before the Judicial Magistrate concerned. On such production, it is open to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the Magistrate concerned. With the above direction this criminal miscellaneous case is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-