IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2774 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------- CMP.3799/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------- K.PARAMESWARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, NAIR, MANAGING PARTNER, KARATHUR BANKERS, TIRUR, RESIDING AT KARUVABNGATTIL HOUSE, ALATHIYOOR AMSOM, POILISSERRY AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, TIRUR(CR.NO.460/2008, TIRUR P.S) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 2774 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 19-08-2008 ORDER This Revision is preferred against an order passed under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. by the J.F.C.M., Tirur granting interim custody of the money and gold allegedly belonging to the customers of the de facto complainant on certain conditions, but refusing the further prayer of the petitioner to return the gold ornaments to the customers who allegedly pledged the same with the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though the de facto complainant filed the petition (C.M.P. 3799 of 2008) under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. his second prayer was to permit him to hand over the gold ornaments to his customers who had pledged the same before the bank of which the petitioner in the managing partner. If the second prayer of the petitioner were to be eventually allowed, the petitioner contends that the resultant order will partake the character of a final order and, therefore, the impugned order Crl.R.P. No. 2774 of 2008 -:2:- is revisable. 3. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. The petitioner could have claimed interim custody of the properties under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. if the properties were produced before court and under Sec. 457 Cr.P.C. in case the seizure of the properties were only reported to the court. While in the former case it is an interlocutory order in the latter case it partakes the character of a final order. See Pathu v. State of Kerala and Others - 1975 KLT 696, P.J. Zacharia and Another v. State of Kerala - 1976 KLT 158 Aliyar Kunju v. Subair Khan - 1984 KLT 268, Johny v. State- 1979 - 85 KUC 367. The position would have been different if the claimant for interim custody was not the de facto complainant or any of the accused but a 3rd party. Even if the claim is under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. as far as such stranger applicant is concerned it may be a final order and available to be revised at his instance in a petition under Sec. 397 Cr.P.C. It is doubtful whether the petitioner could have incorporated the second prayer of permission to hand over the gold ornaments of the customers or the petitioner for the sole reason that they were pledged by those customers. If in a petition under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. an Crl.R.P. No. 2774 of 2008 -:3:- order having the force of a final order is passed even at the crime stage, then there will be nothing left for the trial court to pass final orders under Sec. 452 Cr.P.C. after the conclusion of trial. For that reason also I am not inclined to entertain this Revision in view of the bar under Sec. 397 (2) Cr.P.C. Hence the Registry was right in pointing out the defect. This Crl. R.P. is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies elsewhere. If the petitioner applies for return of the certified copy of the impugned order that shall be granted by the Registry. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.