Disposed

State of Kerala v. Swami Amrutha Chithanya @ Santoh Madhavan

Kerala HC6 Aug 2012Crl.MC/850/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order releasing seized articles on interim custody, directing the Magistrate to decide afresh after hearing the prosecuting agency, citing Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The order was set aside; the Magistrate was directed to reconsider the application afresh within four weeks after hearing the prosecuting agency.

State of Kerala Vs Swami Amrutha Chithanya @… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/15TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 850 of 2012 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN .NO./ IN CRRP.1484/2011 DATED 26.05.2011 CRIME.NO.897/2008/IN CRMP.1410/2011 of CHIEF JUDICIALMAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT IN CRL.M.P:

¶8

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI T ASAF ALI

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶11

SWAMI AMRUTHA CHITHANYA @ SANTOH MADHAVAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, PARAYICHIRAVEETTIL, IRUPATHEKKAR KARA, KATTAPPANA, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.4B, MANSION APARTMENT, ROYAL STADIUM, KADAVANTHRA MARKET ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE-682 020.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

LSN

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 850 of 2012 (A)

¶16

ANNEXURE

¶17

PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURE

¶18

ANNEXURE AI. A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE ACCUSED AS CRL.MP.NO.1410/2011. ANNEXURE AII. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRTE COURT, DATED 26/5/2011 IN MP.NO.1310/2011 OF CRIME NO.897/08 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE AIII. A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF ORDER DATED 23/2/2012 IN CRRLP NO.1484/2011.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

LSN

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J.

¶24

Crl.M.C. NO. 850 of 2012

¶25

Dated this the 06^th day of August, 2012

¶26

ORDER

¶27

State has filed this petition challenging

¶28

Annexure A-II order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, allowing an application moved by the respondent who is the accused in Crime No:897/2008 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam, for release of some articles seized in connection during the investigation of the aforesaid crime on execution of a bond for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties. The main thrust of challenge raised by the learned Director General of Prosecution for assailing Annexure A-II order is that a proper opportunity was not provided to the State and the Investigating Officer was not heard before passing of Annexure A-II order. Going through Annexure A-II order it is

¶29

seen on Annexure A-I application moved by the respondent/accused one line order has been passed directing

¶30

Crl.M.C. NO. 850 of 2012

¶31

¶32

him to furnish security as aforesaid. Though the order would reflect that the prosecuting agency was also heard, evidently, with reference to the materials covered by the case, the learned Magistrate has not examined the question of release of the articles on interim custody. The learned Magistrate is directed to take note of the guidelines given in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat (2003(2) KLT 1089 SC) in the release of articles seized in connection with the crime on interim custody, pending trial. Advertence to and following of such guidelines may be essential since very many items seized by the Police may have some significance or relevance at the stage of trial. So much so, when articles are to be released on interim custody, whatever be the conditions imposed, question whether mahazars prepared over the same noting particulars of the articles or their photographs taken would suffice the requirement for the purpose of evidence in the case, necessarily, has to be looked into by the court while passing order for release of the articles on interim custody.

¶33

Crl.M.C. NO. 850 of 2012

¶34

¶35

Setting aside Annexure A-II order the

¶36

Magistrate is directed to consider Annexure A-I application afresh and dispose it, after affording an opportunity to the prosecuting agency to raise its objections, if any, as expeditiously, as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to point out the observations made above, and also, the guidelines given in the reported decision referred to, shall be taken note of the Magistrate for passing appropriate orders.

¶37

Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

¶38

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE.

¶39

DMR /-

State of Kerala v. Swami Amrutha Chithanya @ Santoh Madhavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Swami Amrutha Chithanya @ Santoh Madhavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajan.K.Varghese Vs C.L.Dileep

Mohammed Ali Vs Maryiammath Minaz

Muhammed Babu Vs Najeeb

Ashraf S/O.Hamza Haji Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Y Vs State of Kerala

Vijayalakshmi Vs the State of Kerala