SAINUDEEN; YOUSAF ALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure-E order dated 20th January, 2011 on C.M.P. No. 9153 of 2010 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam. According to the Petitioners, the accused cheated them by sale of a brass pot for Rs. 50 lakhs. It is stated that the police seized Rs. 14,66,000/- from the accused and the same was produced before the learned Magistrate. First Petitioner, claiming right over the said amount, filed C.M.P. No. 9153 of 2010 for interim custody of the amount seized, which resulted in Annexure-E order. The learned Counsel submitted that the learned Magistrate is not correct in observing that there is dispute regarding ownership of the amount. It is contended that no reference has been made to the records submitted by the police which would indicate, prima facie that the amount belonged to the Petitioners.

(2.) I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also.

(3.) It is seen that on C.M.P. No. 9153 of 2010 no notice was given to the accused from whose possession the amount was allegedly seized. He is entitled to notice on the proceeding. He is entitled to object to the claim made by the Petitioners or any of them or even make a claim for interim custody. In such a situation, the order passed without notice to the accused cannot stand.