IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 556 of 2011() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/01/2011 IN CMP 181/2011 IN CC.1692/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER/CLAIM PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- SHANMUGHA DAS, S/O. MAMA, KANJIRAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINJANAM, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 556 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 4th day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner challenges Annexure-B, order dated 10.01.2011 on CMP No.181 of 2011 in CC No.1692 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakkuda. The Irinjalakkuda Police registered Crime No.337 of 2010 for offence punishable under Sec.17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act against one Noble. In the course of investigation, certain documents were seized from said Noble. One such document is Document No.2494/1/2009 of Mathilakam SRO which related to the property of petitioner. Petitioner filed CMP No.181 of 2011 for interim custody of the said document. That application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by Annexure-B, order stating that if the document is returned petitioner might encumber the property. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. It is seen from Annexure-A, CMP No.181 of 2011 that petitioner has specifically stated that he is prepared to produce the document as and when directed by the court without encumbering the property. That claim of the petitioner appears to have been not noticed by the learned Magistrate. Moreover, there is no case pending in the court concerning the property of Crl.M.C.No.556 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioner so that the court is concerned with the question whether property would be encumbered or not. If the accused had no valid objection to return of the document to the petitioner, there is no reason why the document should not have been returned to the petitioner after substituting the same with a certified photocopy and on petitioner executing bond for appropriate amount with appropriate conditions for its production as and when directed. It is seen that the accused is not made a party in this proceeding. Hence I do not propose to pass any order in this proceedings. Proper course is to send the petition back to the learned Magistrate in the light of the observations made above to pass appropriate orders after hearing the Law officer and the accused. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Annexure-B, order on CMP No.181 of 2011 ( in CC No.1692 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakkuda) is set aside. CMP No.181 of 2011 is remitted to the said court for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above. Sd/- (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE KRK Crl.M.C.No.556 of 2011 -: 3 :-