IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3865 of 2009() ------------------------- CMP.1949/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA .................... (CRIME NO.76/2008 OF KADACKAL POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- RAHIYANATH, W/O. SULAIMAN, RAMSU MANZIL, ELAMPAZHANNOOR MURI, KADACKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM BY ADV. MR.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3865 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 11th day of January,2010 ORDER Gold ornaments and three mobile phones were seized in Crime No.76/2008 of Kadackal Police Station and produced before the court . Petitioner the wife of the nineth accused, filed CMP 1949/2009 before Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kottarakkara for return of the gold ornaments, as well as the mobile phones contending that they belong to the petitioner and she is not an accused and she is prepared to abide by any condition. By Annexure C order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure C order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were Crl.M.C.3865/2009 2 heard. 3. The gold ornaments produced before the court and sought to be released to the petitioner are the stolen articles. The investigation is not over. In such circumstances, the gold ornaments cannot be released to the petitioner, who is the wife of one of the accused especially when the gold ornaments will have to be identified during trial. Even for the purpose of investigation it may be necessary. Therefore they cannot be released as sought for at this stage. 4. Learned counsel then submitted that in any case mobile phones seized and produced are to be released. The specific case of the prosecution is that those mobile phones were purchased by the nineth accused utilising the money received by selling a part of the stolen articles. In the nature of the contentions raised, at this stage of the investigation, petitioner is not entitled to get them released. Petitioner is at liberty to Crl.M.C.3865/2009 3 approach the Magistrate at a later stage and then the question whether petitioner is entitled to get them released or not is to be considered by the Magistrate, after final report is filed. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006