ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime case registered at Kondotty Police Station. After house breaking in night valuable properties including gold ornaments were stolen from his house, was the case for registration of the crime. Investigation of that crime led to indictment of three accused persons for offences punishable under Section 457, 380 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code. When the trial proceeded one among the accused (A3) remained at large. While the trial proceeded against A1 and A2, presence of A1 could not be secured since he was severely indisposed of, though he was in jail. Case against A1 and A3 were split up, and proceeded against A2 alone which led to the acquittal of that accused. Subsequently trial proceeded against A1 and it led to his conviction for the offences. Split up case against the remaining accused, A3, renumbered as C.C. No. 1210/2011 is still awaiting disposal as the presence of that accused who is the sole accused in that split up case, is yet to be secured.

(2.) Petitioner/de facto complainant moved an application for release of interim custody of the valuables stolen, some of which were recovered and produced before the court. Gold ornaments worth 15 sovereigns had been stolen in the house breaking, apart from a camera and other valuable items, was his case. During investigation three gold ingots which are stated to have been made out of the gold ornaments stolen and also the camera were seized, and produced before the court. Petitioner moved for release of those items, the gold ingots, marked as MO 1 series, and camera, marked as M03, during the trial against the accused (A1 and A2) previously completed by the court. Learned magistrate allowed the release of camera on condition of execution of a bond for Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and also its production as and when directed. So far as the release of the gold ingots, the request was turned down holding that item is necessary for evidence in the trial of the accused (A3) and also for the reason that the petitioner has not stated the purpose for which release of that item was applied for. Annexure A is that order. The above petition has been filed impeaching the correctness of Annexure A order seeking issue of direction to the magistrate to release the gold ingots seized in the case.

(3.) Learned Public. Prosecutor submits that the accused in C.C. No. 1210/2011 originally ranked as A3, still, remains at large. The gold ingots produced in the case, originally marked as MO 1 series, are necessary for the evidence to be tendered in the split up case against A3, is the further submission to oppose the petition.