IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2961 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 2747/2008 IN CC.917/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- C.P.FATHIMA , AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. P.MUHAMMAD, IN KANHANGAD OF HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD SOUTH. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT: --------------------------- S.H.O.HOSDURG POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2961 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has been examined as P.W.1 in a case where accused persons are facing indictment for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.379 IPC. Gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner are the subject matter of theft. Those ornaments were recovered and were released to the petitioner. The petitioner at the time of examination had produced the ornaments before court. After the same was marked, the petitioner prayed that the ornaments may be released to her. The learned Magistrate felt that as the trial is not complete and the Investigating Officer and the recovery witnesses are yet to be examined, the ornaments cannot be released to the petitioner immediately. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. Crl.M.C. No. 2961 of 2008 -: 2 :- 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order. The petitioner has no other ornaments to wear and, in these circumstances, the ornaments may be released to her, it is prayed. I find merit in the stand taken by the learned Magistrate that before the Investigating Officer and the recovery witnesses are examined, the ornaments cannot be returned to the petitioner as the petitioner will then have to be directed to produce the same before court on all dates of posting. 3. Considering all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that appropriate directions, in the interests of justice, can be issued. 4. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed in part. The impugned order is set aside. (b) The learned Magistrate is directed to expeditiously complete the examination of the Investigating Officer and the other witnesses who have to speak with reference to the ornaments in question and thereafter consider C.M.P.No.2747/08 afresh and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible in the light of the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638). Examination of such necessary witnesses must be Crl.M.C. No. 2961 of 2008 -: 3 :- completed as expeditiously as possible – at any rate, within a period of two months from the date on which a copy of this order is placed before court. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge