IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4938 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.4311/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL CRIME NO.5 OF 2008 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- SASANKAN, S/O.JANARDHANAN, K.C.MANDIRAM (KESAVA MANDIRAM), NEAR TOLL MUKKU, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, AVANANCHERRY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.(CRIME NO.5 OF 2008 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION). 2. SUNIL DUTT, S/O.SIVADASAN, GOVINDAVILASOM VEEDU, PANDAKASALA, SARKKARA VILLAGE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4938 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 ORDER Petitioner is the 3rd accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 380 r/w 149 I.P.C. The 2nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant. It is the case of the defacto complainant that articles were thieved from his house by accused persons including the petitioner herein. One such article allegedly thieved and it was later recovered from the possession of the petitioner herein is a brass lamp. That lamp admittedly seized from the possession of the petitioner/accused was produced before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent staked claims for interim release of the said brass lamp. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order directed that the brass lamp be released to the 2nd respondent. 2. Neither party was able to produce convincing documents to prove ownership or possession of the brass lamp. However, it remains that it was seized from the possession of the petitioner herein. It is the case of the complainant that by Crl.M.C. No.4938 of 2008 2 stealth and theft the brass lamp had come into the possession of the petitioner. The dispute was whether the brass lamp was in the possession of the petitioner as gifted by his father in law or whether it was the brass lamp belonging to the 2nd respondent which had come into the possession of the petitioner by stealth. The matter had to be decided on prima facie materials as the investigation is not complete and better data has not been made available. 3. The learned Magistrate appears to have favoured the case of the 2nd respondent on the ground that the 2nd respondent stated that his lamp has a particular mark on it at a particular spot. On verification that was found to be correct. It was hence that the learned Magistrate preferred to accept the claim of the 2nd respondent for interim release. Even though the petitioner also made some assertions about a mark, such a mark could not be found out on the lamp verification. 4. The short question is whether this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C should interfere with the arrangement made by the learned Magistrate. I note that sufficient and adequate conditions have been imposed by the learned Magistrate. Of course the jurisdiction under Section 482 Crl.M.C. No.4938 of 2008 3 Cr.P.C is available to this Court if the Court is satisfied that the impugned directions result in failure/miscarriage of justice. In the circumstances explained above, I am unable to find any such vice vitiating the impugned order. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant interference. I make it very clear that I have not expressed any conclusion on the disputed claims of the contestants. I have only chosen to take the view that the present arrangement need not be disturbed without making any comment on the rights of the parties or acceptability of their respective contentions. Investigators must make every endeavour to complete the investigation expeditiously and the parties shall be at liberty to adduce appropriate evidence at the final stage of disposal of the case to substantiate their respective contentions/claims for the lamp. 5. This Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-