Kerala High Court
M.A.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 17 February, 2010
Author: V.Ramkumar
Bench: V.Ramkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2350 of 2009()
1. M.A.CHANDRAN, S/O.LATE ACHUTHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. JOSEPH, S/O.ANTONY
For Petitioner :SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :17/02/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Crl.R.P. No. 2350 of 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dated: 17th 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.
2. Aggrieved by the order for disposal, the petitioner filed 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.
3. This Court had called for a report from the trial Court as to whether the order for return of ornaments was complied with or 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.