High Court dismissed criminal revision against acquittal. Court upheld lower orders returning disputed gold ingot to victim under Cr.P.C. Sections 452 and 454, noting lack of interim custody claim by petitioner.
Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; order for return of gold ingot to respondent Joseph upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2350 of 2009() -----------------------------CRA.514/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, PALAKKAD (CRMP. 264 /2007 IN SC.84/2003 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, OTTAPPALAM
REVN. PETITIONER(S):
M.A.CHANDRAN, S/O.LATE ACHUTHAN AGED 66 YEARS, MOOCHIKKAL HOUSE ETHANUR PO, CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA
RESPONDENT(S):
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 2350 of 2009**
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 17**th February, 2010
ORDER
The petitioner who claims to be proprietor of M.A.C. Jewellery was examined as P.W.3 in Sessions Case No. 84 of 2003 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ottappalam. It was a case involving an offence punishable under Sec. 395 I.P.C. P.W.1 (Joseph) was the person who was robbed of the gold chain in question. The gold chain was produced from the custody of the petitioner herein in the form of an ingot. It was the ingot allegedly made by melting the gold chain said to have been extorted from P.W.1. The case ended in acquittal. However, the trial Judge passed an order for return of the gold ingot to P.W.1 (Joseph) who is the 2nd respondent herein. The said order was evidently passed under Sec. 452 Cr.P.C.
Crl.R.P. 2350 of 2009 -:2:-
Crl. Appeal 514 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad under Sec. 454 Cr.P.C. The lower appellate Court also concurred
with the trial court regarding the final disposal of the gold ingot marked as MO1 in the case. It is aggrieved by the said order that the petitioner has filed this Revision.
not. As per letter dated 24-1-2010 the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Ottappalam reported that in obedience to the directions in the judgment of the lower appellate court, MO1 gold ingot was returned to P.W.1 (Joseph). The fact that the petitioner did not make any claim for interim custody and the further fact that the petitioner had not disputed his purchase of the gold ornament in question from the accused etc. weighed with the Courts below in ordering of return MO1 to P.W.1. The courts below were entitled to look into the case diary statements of the witnesses including the petitioner while conducting the enquiry under Sec. 452
Crl.R.P. 2350 of 2009 -:3:-
Cr.P.C. as the bar under Sec. 162 (1) Cr.P.C. does not apply. Such being the position, I see no ground to interfere with the judgment under revision . The gold ingot has already been returned to P.W.1 pursuant to the orders of the lower appellate Court.
This Revision Petition is without merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)
/true copy/
P.S. to Judge
ani.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial and appellate courts were entitled to order the return of the disputed gold ingot to the victim under Sec. 452 Cr.P.C. despite the petitioner's acquittal.
Whether Sec. 162 Cr.P.C. bars the court from considering case diary statements during an enquiry under Sec. 452 Cr.P.C. for final disposal of property.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M.A. CHANDRAN
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
JOSEPH
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
