IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4867 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.4384/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED JAHANGIR ALAM S/O.LUTFUR REHMAN, 162/03,WEST RUMPARA, RAMPURA BAHAK, BANGLADESH. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CIRME DETACHMENT,ALUVA IN CRIME NO. 480/08 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. By PP SRI GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.M.C.NO. 4867 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the dismissal of an application filed by petitioner, the accused in Crime No.480 of 2008, to get back the title deed produced by the surety. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application among other things, holding that the title deed was produced by the surety and no application was filed by the surety and the counsel who filed the application is not having any vakalath to appear for the surety. 2. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the order. When a surety produced his title deed, it is only that surety who is entitled to get back the title deed from court. Though the petition was filed by the counsel appearing for accused, he is not holding vakalath for the surety. Hence dismissal of the application is perfectly legal. This petition is dismissed with liberty to the surety to approach the learned Magistrate. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-