IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 284 of 2009() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN CMP 3180/2008 IN CMP.3121/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNILDETH,S/O. SIVADASAN, GOVINDAVILASOM VEEDU, PANDAKASALA, SARKKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. PRASANNABABU, S/O. KUMARAN, KARTHIKA, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, AVANAVANCHERY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 284 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs. 420 and 467 IPC. The 2nd respondent herein is the accused. It is the case of the petitioner that the articles belonging to him which he had allegedly entrusted to the 2nd respondent were all misappropriated by him. The articles so entrusted and misappropriated, inter alia, include one air conditioner. That air conditioner was seized from the house of the 2nd respondent in the course of investigation. Both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent staked claims for release of the said air conditioner. By the impugned common order, the learned Magistrate took the view that the same can be handed over to the 2nd respondent; he being the person from whose possession the air conditioner was admittedly seized. Conditions were Crl.M.C. No. 284 of 2009 -: 2 :- imposed including a condition that an amount of Rs.25,000/- must be deposited as cash security. Accordingly, the air conditioner was released to the 2nd respondent after he complied with the conditions imposed. The air conditioner is now in the possession of the 2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. According to the petitioner, he is the real owner of the air conditioner and, in these circumstances, he is entitled for release of the air conditioner during the pendency of the investigation. 3. At the moment and with the available inputs, it appears to me to be hazardous to authentically resolve the controversy as to whose version is true and correct. The petitioner has a grievance that he had produced several documents to show that he was the owner of the air conditioner; whereas the 2nd respondent had not produced any authentic documents. Be that as it may, I take note of the nature of the conditions imposed. A cash security of Rs.25,000/- has already been insisted which amount is almost sufficient perhaps to buy such a new air conditioner now. In these circumstances, I am of the view that Crl.M.C. No. 284 of 2009 -: 3 :- the impugned order which more than adequately protects the interests of the petitioner need not be interfered with. Obviously, the learned Magistrate was aware of the concerns which the Supreme court in the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638). Such conditions have been imposed evidently to ensure that the air conditioner does not suffer from damage and deterioration in court custody. In the anxiety of the learned Magistrate to entrust the air conditioner to some person on appropriate terms and conditions the impugned order has been passed. I am not satisfied that the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate to release the air conditioner in favour of the 2nd respondent after adequately and conveniently securing the interests of all concerned does warrant interference by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Appropriate directions can be issued by the learned Magistrate at the end of the proceedings regarding the amount of Rs.25,000/- retained as cash security. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the investigation is not undertaken with sufficient speed and expedition, the petitioner has already approached the learned Crl.M.C. No. 284 of 2009 -: 4 :- Magistrate with a petition to issue directions under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. in terms of the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)). 5. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above directions. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 284 of 2009 -: 5 :-