Allowed

Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Aug 2013CRL.A/1120/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Kerala set aside the trial court's direction to return material objects to the police witness. The court held that items taken by the accused from the defacto complainant must be returned to him, not the police officer who registered the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The direction to return material objects to PW7 was set aside. An order was passed to return MO1, MO2 series to MO4 series, MO6 series, and MO8 series to PW1, the defacto complainant.

Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/29TH SRAVANA, 1935

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1120 of 2012 (D)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 433/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE-FAST TRACK COURT-II, PALAKKAD DATED 19-04-2011

¶7

APPELLANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

ABDUL SALAM

¶9

S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, 'P.T.HOUSE', VADAKKUMMURI' ERUMPUZHI (P.O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 513.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN (PALAKKAD)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:

¶12

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

¶13

SIBI GEORGE

¶14

S/O.VARGHESE, KOONAMMAKKAL HOUSE, ADUPPU COLONY CHEMBANA, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶15

PIN - 678651.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶19

Crl.Appeal No.1120 Of 2012 ---------------------Dated this the 20^th day of August, 2013.

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The defacto complainant examined as PW1 is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.4.2011 in S.C.No.433/2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court - II, Palakkad to the extent of disposal of MO1, MO2 series to MO4 series, MO6 series and MO8 series. The accused stands charge sheeted as per Crime No.4/06 of Mankara Police station for the offences punishable under Sections 395 & 412 of IPC. The prosecution case is that on 6.1.2006 at 11:00 am accused Nos.5 & 6, shown under the charge sheet, forcibly took PW1 in a Tata Sumo vehicle, that A1 to A6 shown in the charge sheet travelled along with PW1 in the said vehicle, that A5 & A6 intimidated him showing knife, also caused hurt to him and they forcibly took ` 1 Lakh, wrist watch and an address slip from the possession of PW1 and thereby A1 to A6 committed offence under Section 395 IPC. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has failed to establish

¶22

::2::

¶23

Crl.A.No.1120 Of 2012

¶24

that the accused has committed offence as alleged. He was acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The court below in the impugned judgment also issued directions to return MO1, MO2 series to MO4 series, MO6 series and MO8 series to PW7 after the expiry of the appeal period. PW7 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Mankara, who registered the FIR.

¶25

The appellant submits that all the aforesaid items of material objects belong to him and that all others including the accused have no claim over the above material objects. It is pointed out that the trial court erroneously directed that the MO1, MO2 series to MO4 series, MO6 series and MO8 series were to be returned to PW7. PW7 has no claim over the material objects and therefore it is prayed that the direction issued by the trial court to return the material objects to PW7 is liable to be set aside and a direction may be issued to return the aforesaid material objects to the appellant.

¶26

On an appreciation of the facts and materials on

¶27

record, the prosecution case itself is that the aforesaid material objects were taken by the accused from PW1 who is the defacto

¶28

::3::

¶29

Crl.A.No.1120 Of 2012

¶30

complainant. PW7 is a police officer who registered the FIR. The direction ought to have been ordered is to return the material objects to PW1, the defacto complainant. Therefore, the order to that extent is set aside. It is submitted that the judgment has attained finality.

¶31

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The direction to the extent of disposal of MO1, MO2 series to MO4 series, MO6 series and MO8 series passed by the court below is set aside. The court below shall pass order to return the material objects, MO1, MO2 series to MO4 series, MO6 series and MO8 series, to PW1, the defacto complainant.

¶32

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶33

bkn/-

Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Preman v Vs Midhun

A.K.Sudhamma Vs State of Kerala

K.Indira Vs Guruvayoorappan

Jacob Thomas Vs Muhammed Sherif @ Shaji

M/S.Mulamoottil Consumer Credits Ltd. Vs T.Sasidharan

P.K.Varghese Vs Dasan