IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3687 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 283/08 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION CMP.8376/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHERI GEORGE PHILIP 27 YEARS OLD S/O. GEORGE PHILIP, THAZHAMON HOUSE, THOMASPURAM, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOLLAM WEST, THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3687 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The prayer is for release of two laptops and one mobile phone belonging to the petitioner, which were seized on 6.7.2008. Crime has been registered alleging offences punishable under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act. The crux of the factual allegations is that four persons, three men, including the petitioner, and a woman were found in a room. The two were lying naked on a bed and the other two were watching obscene pictures on the Laptop screen. The two laptops and the mobile phone were seized along with other articles. The other articles were already directed to be released. The laptops and mobile phone were not released to the petitioner under the impugned order. 2. The petitioner complains that there is absolutely no necessity to keep the laptops and mobile phone in custody. Crl.M.C.No. 3687 of 2008 2 Exposure to unfriendly atmosphere is likely to cause destruction to those instruments. Those articles may also be directed to be released, it is prayed. 3. The learned Prosecutor was directed to take instructions and get a statement filed as to why it is necessary to keep these articles in custody. The learned Prosecutor reports that the laptops are produced in court and a requisition has been filed to the learned Magistrate to get a report from the Sub Divisional Magistrate after viewing the pictures in the laptops to ascertain whether they are obscene or not. Once that report of the S.D.M. is received, the State has no objection against release of the laptops to the petitioner. So far as the mobile phone is concerned, nothing has been urged before me at the Bar and nothing is stated in the statement as to why the mobile phone should not be released to the petitioner. In these circumstances I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued in favour of the petitioner. 4. This Crl.M.C. is allowed. The following directions are issued. a) The mobile phone shall forthwith be released to the petitioner on his executing a bond for appropriate amount to be fixed by the learned Magistrate with two sureties. Crl.M.C.No. 3687 of 2008 3 b) The learned Magistrate shall ensure that the requisite report is obtained from the S.D.M. as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three weeks, and after obtaining such report the learned Magistrate shall release the laptops also to the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. 5. Hand over the order to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who shall forthwith produce the same before the learned Magistrate. (R. BASANT) Judge tm