IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1193 of 2010 --------------------------------------- MP.6575/2009 of JFCM-I, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1. SHREE BALAJI METALLURGICAL INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REG. OFFICE AT SHORNUR, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, DR P.M.MOOTHADATH RESIDING AT NO.29, HRIDYA, ANSALS RIVERDALE, EROOR ROAD, KOCHI 682 306. 2. DR.P.M.MOOTHADATH, MANAGING PARTNER SHREE BALAJI METTALURGICAL INDUSTRIES (SBMI) SHORNUR, PALAKKAD, RESIDING A NO.29, HRIDAYA ANSALS RIVERDALE, EROOR PO, COCHIN. 3. SMT. SUHITA MOHANSINGH, W/O.DR.P.M.MOOTHADATH, PARTNER OF SHREE BALAJI METALLURGICAL INDUSTRIES, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.T.D.SALIM SRI.C.S.YESUDAS RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.B.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1193 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER As per Annexure-A13 order dated 10.3.2010, permission was granted by the learned Magistrate to sell the articles seized and produced before the court, on the ground that the goods are likely to get deteriorated in value by passage of time. Learned Magistrate directed petitioner to deposit the sale proceeds before the court and also to execute a bond for Rupees Five lakhs with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the direction to deposit the sale proceeds in court, contending that if petitioner is to deposit that amount, he will lose the interest for the amount. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 1193/10 2 3. Case of the petitioners is that the articles seized and produced before the court belong to the Firm and accused tried to misappropriate the same and they were seized and produced before the court. If petitioners are permitted to appropriate the sale proceeds and ultimately, if it is found that petitioners are not entitled to the articles, it will cause much hardship. In such circumstances, the sale proceeds cannot be allowed to be appropriated by the petitioners, as canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. At the same time, there is substance in the submission that if the amount is to be deposited and the date of completion of the investigation is uncertain, as the accused is absconding and if the amount is kept in court deposit, it will not carry any interest. But, that difficulty could be over come by directing the learned Magistrate to deposit the sale proceeds in a Nationalised Bank in Fixed Deposit, so that the amount will carry interest. CRMC 1193/10 3 4. Learned counsel then submitted that learned Magistrate has not taken necessary precaution as provided by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (1003 (2) KLT 1089). Learned Magistrate should have directed petitioner to take photographs of the articles ceased and produced in court, so that, if necessary, it could be used as evidence. 5. In such circumstances, Annexure-A13 order is modified providing that before effecting the sale, petitioners shall prepare proper mahazar of such articles, take photographs of the articles and produce them before the court. Learned Magistrate, on depositing the sale proceeds by the petitioners, shall invest the same in a Nationalised Bank as Fixed Deposit. Petition is disposed accordingly. 9th April, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv