Allowed

Reji P.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jun 2014Crl.MC/3095/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Magistrate's order dismissing an application for release of seized cash. The Court allowed interim custody to the accused on the condition of executing a bond with sureties and furnishing a bank guarantee or property security equivalent to the seized amount.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; interim custody of seized money permitted to petitioner subject to furnishing a bond with sureties and a bank guarantee or property security.

Reji P.P Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2014/2ND ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3095 of 2014 ()

¶6

--------------------------CMP. NO. 1856/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANJIRAPPALLY ------------------------CRIME NO. 404/2014 OF ERUMELY POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

REJI P.P., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. PEETHAMBARAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANIPUZHA KARA, ERUMELY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

CRMC.NO.3095/2014

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEX 1	COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED 20/5/2014 IN CRL.M.P.NO.1176/2014 BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM
ANNEX 2	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30/5/2014 ALONG WITH THE BANK STATEMENT ISSUED FROM KANJIRAPALLY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
ANNEX 3	COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE ERUMELY GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14
ANNEX 4	COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 18/1/2013 AND 24/5/2014 ISSUED FROM THE VETERINARY HOSPITAL, ERUMELY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, CENTE, ERUMELY RESPECTIVELY
ANNEX 5	COPY OF THE PURCHASE BILL DATED 7/5/2014 ISSUED FROM MADATHANIL TRADERS SHOWING THE PURCHASE OF 2527 LIVE CHICKEN FOR A TOTAL PRICE OR RS.2,40,065/-
ANNEX 6	TYPED COPY OF THE CMP.NO.1856/2014 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANJIRAPALLY
ANNEX 7	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/5/2014 IN CMP.NO.1856/2014 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANJIRAPALLY
ANNEX 8	COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE FORM ISSUED FORM JAYA POULTRY FEEDS, RANNI ON 16/5/2014 AND 22/5/2014 AND 30/5/2015

¶19

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.3095 of 2014

¶25

Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2014.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.404/2014 of Erumely police station, challenging the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally in Crl.M.P.No.1856/2014 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

¶28

It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the accused in Crime No.404/2014 of Erumely police station which was registered against him alleging the offences under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. The allegation was that on 15.5.2014 at about 2.30 p.m the petitioner was found to be engaged in money lending without licence. He was arrested on the same day, but later released on bail. While he was arrested, the police had seized two blank signed cheques, two signed blank papers and an amount of Rs.2,34,630/- and they were produced before court. The petitioner is conducting poultry

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.3095 of 2014 2

¶30

farm after obtaining huge loan from the bank and also necessary licences for conducting the same from the panchayat. The amount seized relates to the value of the chicken sold from a chicken trader. Though documents have been produced, the lower court has not considered those aspects. He filed an application under Section 451 of the Code as Crl.M.P.No.1856/2014 for releasing the cash but by the impugned order, the same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging that order.

¶31

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Pubic Prosecutor.

¶32

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that documents produced by the petitioner will go to show that he is not conducting any money lending business, but he is conducting poultry farm and identity of the money as shown is not disputed. Keeping the money in custody will not serve any purpose. The petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition imposed by this Court.

¶33

The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that, if the money is released, he is likely to use

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.3095 of 2014 3

¶35

the same for illegal money lending purpose. There is nothing to interfere with the order passed by the court below.

¶36

It is an admitted fact that the police had conducted search of the house of the petitioner and seized an amount of RS.2,34,630/- along with blank signed cheques and blank signed papers. Since there was no explanation given for the same, they have registered Crime No.404/2014 of Erumely police station under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lending Act. He was arrested and later released on bail which is evident from Annexure-A1 order. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the amount was seized from the possession of the petitioner. Police also had no case that the amount belongs to some other persons. The petitioner had produced some documents to show that he is conducting poultry farm etc. I am not at this stage going into the question as it is a matter to be considered by the trial court as to whether allegations made against him are true or not. When the petition came up for hearing on the last posting date, when it was suggested as to whether the petitioner can provide any property security or bank guarantee for the amount equivalent to the value of the money seized,

¶37

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.3095 of 2014

¶39

counsel for the petitioner seeks time to get instructions.

¶40

Today, when the application came up for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is prepared to provide bank guarantee or property security if release is made equivalent to the value of the money that is seized. Considering the fact that he is conducting poultry farm and keeping this amount is not going to help any one and since the fact that money was seized from the possession of the petitioner, this Court feels that the petition an be disposed of as follows:

¶41

The order passed by the court below dismissing the application for release of the money is set aside and interim custody of money is ordered in favour of the petitioner on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.2,34,630/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally and also on further condition that the petitioner shall either furnish bank guarantee or furnish property security to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtII, Kanjirappally for this amount. The petitioner shall file an undertaking that ultimately, if it is found that this amount is used for commission of the above crime and he is convicted

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.3095 of 2014 5

¶43

later, then bond can be enforced against those security that has been given and the amount can be forfeited. If the petitioner produces bank guarantee, it must be for a period of two years and if case is not disposed of within the period of two years, the same will have to be renewed from time to time till the disposal of the case. If the above conditions are fulfilled by the petitioner, then the learned Magistrate is directed to release the said amount to the petitioner.

¶44

With the above conditions, the petition is disposed of.

¶45

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.

¶46

Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

/true copy/

P.S to Judge

Crl.M.C.No.3095 of 2014 6

Reji P.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reji P.P 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

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Rajan M Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh P K Vs Sinimol K S

Aboobacker Vs State of Kerala

Babu.G. Vs State of Kerala

Prakash M Kammath Vs State of Kerala