Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 706 (KER)

Geetha Rani v. State Of Kerala

2022-08-16

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

body2022
ORDER : 1. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in crime No.2272/2020 of Chavara Police Station, which was registered against her and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation against the accused persons are that they have collected certain amounts from the defacto complainant offering him a job in Kerala Mines and Minerals Limited, Chavara. It was also alleged that, the accused persons have also created forged documents purporting to be that of the said Company. 3. As part of the investigation, certain articles were seized from the possession of the petitioner, at the time of arrest, which are as follows: 1. A gold chain and locket weighing about 60 grams 2. 5 number of gold bangles weighing about 40.500 grams 3. A gold bangle weighing about 18.200 grams. 4. 2 number of gold rings weighing about 9.800 grams 5. A gold ring weighing about 9.800 grams 6. 2 number of minji weighing about 4 grams 7. 2 number of gold earrings weighing about 3.400 grams. Later, the petitioner submitted C.M.P. No.551/2021 seeking release of the aforesaid articles under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and it culminated in Annexure-1 order by which the same was dismissed. This Crl.M.C. is filed in such circumstances. 4. Heard Sri. M.R. Sasith, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the reasons stated by the learned Magistrate while dismissing the application submitted by the petitioner are not legally sustainable. 6. I have gone through Annexure-1 order and heard the contentions from either side. It is evident from Annexure-1 order that the only ground on which the application submitted by the petitioner dismissed was that, the petitioner is an accused in more than ten pending cases and several other disposed cases. It is also mentioned in the said order that, according to the Station House Officer, the gold ornaments which were recovered from the possession of the petitioner were obtained by the accused, using the amount which she collected from the illegal methods in connection with the said crime. Merely because of that reason, the aforesaid application is seen to have been dismissed. 7. Merely because of that reason, the aforesaid application is seen to have been dismissed. 7. After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that there is some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel by the petitioner. In this case, the offences alleged against the petitioner are not theft of gold ornaments. On the other hand, the allegation is in relation to the forgery committed by the accused persons. Merely because of the reason that, the petitioner is implicated for the other offences, the interim custody of the articles cannot be denied. It is an admitted fact that the articles were seized from the possession of the petitioner. It is true that the Station House Officer raised a contention before the learned Magistrate that, the aforesaid articles were purchased by the petitioner from the funds raised by her through the commission of the crime. 8. On perusal of the records, apart from the said statement, no materials are produced in support of the same. Even otherwise, the custody as contemplated under Section 451 is only of an interim custody and it would not confer any absolute title on the person to whom the custody is given. The scope of enquiry under Section 451 is as to the competence of the person to keep the articles in custody so as to preserve them till the completion of the trial. In Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2002(10) SCC 283] the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of keeping the articles in the police custody for longer periods. 9. Therefore, the reasoning adopted by the learned Magistrate, does not appear to sound. Hence it requires reconsideration. In such circumstances, Annexure 1 order is hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner and decide the same afresh. It is further directed that the application shall not be dismissed merely on the ground of criminal antecedents of the petitioner. In case the learned Magistrate arrives at a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for custody of the same, it shall be open for the learned Magistrate to incorporate appropriate conditions ensuring the production of the same as and when required. The writ petition is disposed of as above.