Allowed

N. Ibrahim v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2020Crl.MC/3745/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings against accused persons involving alleged misappropriation of seized articles non-compliant with ISTB standards. The court held that failure to execute a mandatory security bond and prepare a mahazar under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act rendered the seizure invalid, precluding prosecution for custody-related offenses.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the FIR registered (Cr.No.402/2011) and allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3745 of 2016.

N. Ibrahim Vs the State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3745 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 555/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II(FOREST OFFENCES),MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.402/2011 OF Edavanna Police Station , Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 N. IBRAHIM

¶10

S/O.ITHELU HAJI, NEERULPAN HOUSE,EDAVANNA, PATHAPIRIYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2 YASEED

¶12

S/O.MOOSAKOYA, KILIYIDUKKI HOUSE,EDAVANNA, PERUMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF

¶16

KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 031.

¶17

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE EDAVANNA POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 541.

¶18

ADDL.3 THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER PASSPORT OFFICE, BY-PASS ROAD, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 006.

¶19

(ADDL. R3 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.11.2018 IN CRL.M.C.3745/2016

¶20

R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R3 BY SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC R3 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.MC.No.3745 OF 2016

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The dispute is with respect to the

¶26

registration of a crime initially for the offence under Section 380 IPC and subsequently altered to

¶27

Section 406 r/w Section 34 IPC against the accused at the instance of officials attached

¶28

with Indian Standard Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram. They conducted an inspection on the shop room of

¶29

accused and seized some articles which were found to be not in conformity with the standard of Indian Standard Bureau. After seizure it was entrusted with the shop owner, the accused. But it was not preserved by him. Hence initially crime under Section 380 IPC registered,

¶30

subsequently altered into 406 r/w Section 34 IPC.

¶31

It is permissible when it is not practical

¶32

to seize any article or thing by the Inspecting Officer, but he has to serve the owner an order directing him not to remove, part with, or otherwise deal with, the article or things

¶33

without his previous permission under Section

¶34

Crl.MC.No.3745 OF 2016

¶35

26(2) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, for which there should be an order and

¶36

mahazar for the entrustment, besides a bond executed by the accused in conformity with Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. But admittedly no security bond was executed in that behalf, though the provisions of Cr.P.C. concerning seizure and attachment made applicable by virtue of Sub Section (3) of Section 26 of the Act. No counter statement submitted in answer to the Crl.M.C. by the investigation or the defacto complainant. Nothing was brought to the notice of this court regarding the compliance of mandatory requirement under Section 26(2) of the Act r/w Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. On the other hand, it is fairly conceded that no bond was executed in accordance with the requirement under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. and no mahazar was prepared for the purpose of entrustment. Sub Section (3) was incorporated to the Code by amendment in 1978 in pursuance of the direction issued by the Apex Court in Anwar Ahmad

¶37

Crl.MC.No.3745 OF 2016

¶38

¶39

v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1976 SC 680] .

¶40

Hence the execution of a bond in accordance with sub section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. cannot be

¶41

avoided. The requirement to execute a bond as mandated under Sub Section (3) is to make the person in whose custody the property was given

¶42

either by the investigating officer or the inspecting officer, liable for keeping the property intact and to produce the same as and when required before the court in connection with the trial of the crime. Hence it will not attract

¶43

Section 406 IPC or Section 380 IPC. If it is proceeded further, it will not serve any purpose.

¶44

Hence the FIR registered and its further proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶45

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

SPV

Crl.MC.No.3745 OF 2016

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX

¶53

PETITIONERS'S EXHIBITS:

¶54

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT-F.I.S. IN CRIME NO.402/2011 OF THE EDAVANNA POLICE STATION DATED, 4.10.2005.

¶55

ANNEXURE B CETIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN C.C.NO.555/2015 OF THE J.F.C.M.II(FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI.

¶56

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER AS NO.E9550117

¶57

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶58

//TRUE COPY//

¶59

PA TO JUDGE

N. Ibrahim v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Ibrahim v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabarinathan Vs State of Kerala

Ismail Vs State of Kerala

P M Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Sreenivasan, Vs State of Kerala

Sabi Vs George Mathew

Aneesh Babu Vs State of Kerala