IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3512 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.469/2009 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION ............. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- DARAMBATH RAMESHAN, S/O.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT DARAMBETH HOUSE, MANIYOOR, P.O.CHEKKIKULAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PRSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE S.H.O., HOSDURG POLICE STATION, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 3512 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 18th November 2009 O R D E R A mobile phone was seized in crime No.469/2009 of Hosdurg police station registered for the offences under Sections 399 and 400 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner filed C.M.P.3761/2009 under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the mobile phone. By Annexure-A1 order learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that as petitioner was involved in inter district crimes, based on the report of the Station House Officer mobile phone cannot be released to the petitioner. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that mobile phone was seized from the person of the petitioner. Though learned Magistrate dismissed the Crmc 3512/09 2 petition on the ground that petitioner is involved in inter district crimes, even in the report submitted before the Magistrate, details of other crime was not shown. When there is no case that mobile phone seized and produced before the Magistrate is an article which is stolen or necessary either for the purpose of investigation or for trial, learned Magistrate is not justified in dismissing the application on the ground that petitioner is involved in inter district crimes. In such circumstances, Annexure-A1 order is quashed. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg is directed to re-consider C.M.P.3761/2009. If the petitioner is the owner of the mobile phone, it is be released to him on conditions. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.