IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4400 of 2010() --------------------------------- CMP.1346/2010 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3: ----------------------------------------- SAJITHA, W/O.JOHN, PANGODAN VEEDU, KARATTU COLONY, MUKKOM KARA, KUMARANALLOOR VILLAGE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MUJEEB COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SMT.PUSHPALATHA.M.K. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS .P.JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4400 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioner, accused No.3 in Crime No.432/2010 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station challenges that part of the order dated 26.02.2010 on C.M.P.No.1346/2010 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam refusing to return the sim card and currency notes seized from the petitioner. Petitioner and others are booked for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act(for short “the Act”). The police seized mobile phones, currency notes for Rs.10,000/- and a vanity bag from the petitioner. Petitioner sought return of the said articles vide C.M.P.No.1346/2010. Investigating officer reported that currency notes are required to prove the offence and that the sim card in the mobile phones are required to prove the connection between petitioner and other accused involved in the case. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate accepting the objection of the prosecution refused to return the currency notes and the sim card while the mobile Crl.M.C. No.4400 of 2010 2 phones (without the sim cards) were returned. Learned counsel submits that it is not necessary to retain the sim card and currency notes. 2. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. So far as return of the sim card is concerned, I do not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. That sim card is required to trace the alleged connection of petitioner with other accused involved in this case. 3. So far as the currency notes are concerned, I do not find reason to further retain it. If the intention in retaining the said currency notes is to prove the case of the prosecution, it could be done with the mahazar if any prepared by the investigating officer which mentions the serial number of the currency notes and by directing petitioner to produce the certified copy of the currency notes signed by her in substitution of the original notes. 4. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) the Supreme Court prescribed the mode of return of articles taken custody by the investigating agency and produced in Court. So far as currency notes are concerned, it is Crl.M.C. No.4400 of 2010 3 sufficient that there is a mahazar showing details of its serial numbers and denomination and that the original notes are substituted by certified photocopies signed by the petitioner as well. Resultantly this petition is allowed in part to the extent that the order under challenge refusing to return the currency notes is set aside, and C.M.P.No.1346/10 to the extent it concerned the currency notes will stand allowed. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shall return the currency notes to the petitioner on her producing certified photocopies of the said currency notes(both sides) and signed by her as well and on ensuring that the mahazar prepared by the police contains details of the currency notes seized. THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. ln