IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 321 of 2008() ------------------------ CMP.5205/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M.V.HARISH, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, MANALAPPA, KARALIPARAMBA HOUSE, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FEROKE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 321 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the 6th accused in Crime No. 328/2007 of Feroke Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Kerala Gaming Act, filed C.M.P. No. 5205/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode for seeking interim custody of the Nokia mobile phone bearing No.9349394404. The said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate as per Annexure D order dated 29.11.2007 holding inter alia that out of the several mobile phones seized and produced in that case, the petitioner has not produced any evidence to prove his ownership over the mobile phone referred to above and that he had not produced any identifying features to identify the mobile phone in question. 2. According to the petitioner, the mobile phone which was the subject matter of the above C.M.P. No. 5205/2007, is item No.13 in the seizure mahazar dated 26.11.2007 prepared by the CRL. M.C. NO. 321/2008 : 2 : Sub Inspector of Police, Feroke in the case and the petitioner has also produced Annexure B bill as per which he claims to have purchased the said mobile phone on 20.10.2007. Since these materials were not before the Magistrate, the petitioner is given one more opportunity to move the Magistrate by producing materials sufficient to identify the mobile phone. Hence, this M.C is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move the Magistrate again under Section 451 Cr.P.C for interim custody of the said mobile phone on production of sufficient evidence to identify the same. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. NO. 321/2008 : 3 :