IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 386 of 2008() --------------------------------- C.C. NO. 1198/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, HOSDURG REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ SHAREEFA, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMAD KUNHI, RESIDING AT K.K. HOUSE, BELLA BEACH, KANHANGAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- S.H.O. HOSDURG, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 386 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who was examined as PW3 in C.C. No. 1198/2005 which was a theft case, is the sister of the de facto complainant who was examined as PW1 in the case. The 1st accused in the case was the husband of the de facto complainant. The 1st accused was charge sheeted and tried before the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Hosdurg for offences punishable under Sections 380 and 461 r/w Section 34 IPC. After the trial of the case, the accused were acquitted as per the judgment dated 25.01.2008. The order passed by the Magistrate directed return of the gold ornaments produced as Mos 1 to 5 to the petitioner herein who was examined as PW3. The petitioner thereupon filed C.M.P.No. 563/2008 before the court below under Section 452 Cr.P.C for return of the gold ornaments. The said petition was rejected for the reason that the direction to return the MOs 1 to 5 to PW3, the petitioner herein was after the appeal time is over and that the appeal time is not yet over. According to the CRL.R.P.NO. 386/2008 : 2: petitioner, her marriage has been fixed to be conducted on 20.02.2008 and it was for wearing the gold ornaments during the marriage that the petitioner applied for return of the MOs. In as much as there was no claim for interim custody either by the accused or by any other person pending trial, I see no reason why the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. Accordingly, Annexure A2 order dated 31.01.2008 passed by the Magistrate is set aside. MOs 1 to 5 shall be returned to the petitioner herein who was examined as PW3 in C.C No. 1198/2005. The return shall, however, be subject to appropriate conditions including one that the petitioner shall not part with, transfer or alter the gold ornaments and she shall produce the same before court as and when required. This Crl.R.P is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P.NO. 386/2008 : 3: