IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 CRL.A.No. 1025 of 2004() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/05/2004 IN CRL.MP.1622/2004 IN SC.819/2001 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ---------------------- RENJAN, S/O. THANKAPPAN PILLAI, RADHA MANDIRAM, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.GIRISH RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- CRL.APPEAL NO. 1025/2004-A ----------------------------------------- Dated 17th July, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant submits, he is the registered owner of the autorickshaw bearing No.KL-2A 6962. He was PW52 in S.C.No.819/2001 on the files of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam. The said autorickshaw was produced as MO 21 in that Sessions Case. When the said case was finally disposed of by judgment dated 26.3.2004, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge ordered to confiscate that autorickshaw. The appellant herein preferred Crl.M.P. No.1622/2004 in that Sessions Case, claiming release of that material object to him. The said application was heard by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam and dismissed by order dated 25.5.2004. It was observed that the said autorickshaw was MO 21 in that case and the court has ordered its confiscation. Therefore, it was held that the Crl.M.P for return of the material object, which was ordered to be confiscated, was not maintainable. Based on that finding, the said Crl.M.P CRL.A. 1025/2004. 2 was dismissed. The appellant has filed this appeal, challenging that order, under Section 454 of the Cr.P.C. 2. We notice that the Sessions Judge cannot order release of a material object, which has been ordered to be confiscated by the said Judge. The Sessions Judge has no power to review his own judgment. The power is limited to correction of clerical or arithmetical error, as provided under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. The remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the final order of the Sessions Judge before this Court in appropriate proceedings. In view of the above position, we find nothing wrong with the order impugned in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to work out his remedies against the judgment in the Sessions Case, to the extent he is aggrieved by it. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/