IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 158 of 2001(A) ---------------------------------------------- CRA.1/1998 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.394/1991 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KARUNAGAPPALLY (CRIME NO. 344/90 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION) .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------- FAZALUDEEN, S/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY, VARATTUKIZHAKKATHIL, NADUVILEKKARA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -31 BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 158 of 2001(A) ORDER ON CRL.M.P.666/2001 AND CRL.M.A.1577/2008 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 158/2001 DISMISSED 22.2.2008. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN, J = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = Crl.M.A. 1576 of 2008 in Crl.R.P.No. 158 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = O R D E R This is an application for impleading filed by the de facto complainant/PW1 in C.C.No. 394/91, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally, in the above revision petition. The revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment dated 22.2.2000 in Crl. Appeal No. 1/98, which is against him. The petitioner herein in seek to implead in the revision petition so as to get an order from this Court, for the custody of the property involved in the criminal case. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have no objection in allowing the petition. Impleading petition allowed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE bkn/- Crl.R.P.No. 158 OF 2001 2 V.K.MOHANAN, J = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = Crl.R.P.No. 158 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. O R D E R This is a petition filed by the additional 2nd respondent in the above revision petition, who is the de facto complainant in C.C.No. 394/91 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally. The above revision petition is filed by the sole accused in the above case in C.C.No. 394/91, challenging the judgment of the lower appellate court as well as the trial court by which he is convicted and sentenced. 2. Crime No. 344/90 was registered in the Karunagappally Police Station at the instance of the petitioner herein, who examined as PW1 during the trial of the case, i.e., C.C.No. 394/91 which instituted upon the report filed by the police, after investigation in the above crime. The offence alleged against the accused in the above case is that he had stolen MO1 property which belonging to the de facto complainant and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. After a full fledged trial, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one Crl.R.P.No. 158 OF 2001 3 year under Section 379 I.P.C. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused, who is the revision petitioner herein preferred Crl. Appeal No. 1/98 before the Sessions Court, Kollam and the same was dismissed as per the judgment dated 22.12.2000, by which the conviction and sentence were confirmed. 3. Thereafter, challenging the conviction and the sentence ordered by the lower appellate court as well as the trial court, the accused preferred this criminal revision petition before this Court which is pending consideration. It is in the above revision petition, the petitioner herein impleaded as additional 2nd respondent and filed the present petition with a prayer for a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally, to release MO1, Gold ingot in C.C.No. 394/91 to the petitioner/de facto complainant. 4. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner/addl. 2nd respondent and the revision petitioner as well as the learned public prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the crime was registered at the instance of the petitioner and during investigation, the police recovered MO1 gold ingot and produced Crl.R.P.No. 158 OF 2001 4 before the court during the trial and finally by the judgment of the trial court, the accused was convicted and sentenced. Though in the judgment of the trial court, there was a direction to return MO1, gold ingot to PW1, who is the de facto complainant and the petitioner herein, the same is not given to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Magistrate in the judgment, the petitioner had already approached the registry of the trial court for getting the property, but he was relegated saying that it can be given only on direction from this court, since the records are already despatched from the trial court to this court. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no rival claimants and the trial court has already issued a direction to return the MO1 to the petitioner herein. The learned public prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that they have no objection in returning the property to the petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while returning the property to the petitioner, sufficient condition must be imposed as security for production of the same in case it is required in the future. Crl.R.P.No. 158 OF 2001 5 6. In view of Section 452 Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the court to pass appropriate order regarding the disposal of the property involved in the case, while concluding the trial. It is clear from the judgment of the trial court that the court has already issued a direction to return the MO1 gold ingot to PW1 who is the de facto complainant and the petitioner herein; but so far the same has not been physically handed over to the petitioner and the court's order has not materialised. According to the prosecution, the offence was taken place on 05.11.1990, from which date onwards, the property in question was out of the possession of the petitioner. Though the trial was terminated as early as on 19.12.97, the property has not so far been given back to the petitioner/de facto complainant, inspite of the direction contained in the judgment of the trial court. In the absence any rival claimant, and especially when where is an order by the trial court under Section 452 Cr.P.C., I am of the view that this petition can be allowed by directing the trial court to return the MO1 property to the petitioner/de facto complainant. In the result, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally, by filing a petition for the return of the MO1, Crl.R.P.No. 158 OF 2001 6 gold ingot which produced and marked in C.C.No. 394/91 and in case the petitioner approach the court as directed, the court below is directed that MO1 gold ingot shall be given possession to the petitioner, on his executing bond in terms of Section 452 (2) Cr.P.C. to be fixed and executed to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE bkn/-