Kerala High Court
Vini Anil vs State Of Kerala on 27 June, 2018
Author: K.Abraham Mathew
Bench: K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 4063 of 2018
-----------------------
CBCID CRIME NO.90/CR/S1/07 AND CRIME NO.91/CR/S1/07 OF PATHANAMTHITTA.
.......
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/COMPLAINANTS:
--------------------------------------
1. VINI ANIL,
AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.LATE KUTTAN,
KARALIL PALLATHU HOUSE,
KURICHIMUTTOM P.O., VALLANA MURI,
KIDNGANOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
2. SIJI K., AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.KUTTAPPAN,
THENGUM MOODIYIL HOUSE, KURICHIMUTTOM MURI,
KIDAGANOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
3. YOVEL T.M., AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH,
BLOCK NO.50, KURICHIMUTTOM MURI,
KIDANGANOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
4. VALSALA P.A., AGED 42 YEARS,
W/O.SAHADEVAN, BLOCK NO.23,
EZHIKKADU HARIJAN COLONY,
KURICHIMUTTOM MURI, KIDANGANOOR VILLAGE,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
5. SAHADEVAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.PODIYAN,
BLOCK NO.23, EZHIKKADU HARIJAN COLONY,
KURICHIMUTTOM MURI, KIDANGANOOR VILLAGE,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION GROUP-I(SIG-1),
CBCID (CRIME BRANCH CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT),
MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 025.
Crl.MC.No. 4063 of 2018 ()
-------------------------
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION GROUP-I(SIG-1),
CBCID (CRIME BRANCH CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT),
MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 025.
BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27-06-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
Crl.MC.No. 4063 of 2018 ()
-------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DTD.21.06.2016 IN
CRL.MC.NO.3309/2012.
ANNEXURE B THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRL.M.P.NO.6662/2016 DTD.22.02.2018.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
29.06.2018.
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.
--------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. NO.4063 of 2018
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2018
ORDER
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioners and several other people had pledged their gold ornaments with one financier. The latter re pledged them with Muthoot Financers Limited without the consent and knowledge of the petitioners and others. The police registered a case against the financier under Section 420 IPC. The gold ornaments were recovered from the Muthoot Financers Limited. They were produced before the court. The court entrusted it with Muthoot Financers Limited for custody. The petitioners along with a few others filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C for custody of their ornaments. The prayer of the petitioners was rejected for different reasons by Annexure-B order. This is challenged.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The first petitioner was the 14 th petitioner in the application filed before the Magistrate. He appeared through a power of attorney. But there were some defects in the power of attorney. For that reason the learned Magistrate rejected his claim.
5. The second petitioner was the 16 th petitioner. Another person Crl.M.C. NO.4063 of 2018 2 appeared claiming to be his authorised agent. But no authorisation was produced. So his claim also was rejected. The third petitioner was Petitioner No.52. He also appeared through another person who claimed to be his agent. The court found some defects in the authorisation. So his claim also was rejected.
6. The other petitioners were petitioners 80 and 81 in the court below. They could not produce receipts issued from the financier to show that they had pledged their ornaments.
7. The order by which their claim of the petitioners was rejected is challenged.
8. The first petitioner submits that he is ready to appear in person and identify his gold ornaments. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners 2 and 3 that they are also ready to appear in person and identify their ornaments. The submission on behalf of the other petitioners is that they are ready to produce the receipts issued by the financier for pledging the ornaments.
9. In the light of the above submission, it is only proper that the lower court is directed to consider the matter again if applications are filed Crl.M.C. NO.4063 of 2018 3 by the petitioners under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is closed directing the petitioners to file fresh application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate shall consider them afresh notwithstanding the rejection of their claim in Annexure-B order. The matter shall be disposed of expeditiously.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE pm