A M ABDUL KHADER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 3rd accused and he faces the allegations, inter alia, under Sec.5 of the Rationing Order and Secs.3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Certain documents have been seized from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for release of such registers as they are required by him in connection with his business. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Magistrate, in the wake of the objections by the learned Public Prosecutor, proceeded to pass the impugned order - Annexure-A2. The objection raised was that if such documents were released to the petitioner, there is every chance of the same affecting the prosecution case adversely. No further details are shown.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents are urgently required by the petitioner for production before the District Collector in accordance with law. If the documents were retained in custody of the court, it would cause the petitioner great hardship and loss. The petitioner shall undertake to produce the documents in the same condition in which it is released to him by the court. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, submits that the State has no objection if the documents are released to the petitioner on condition that he produces the same again in the same condition in which it is released to him. It is further submitted that it may be insisted that the certified copies of the vitally relevant pages of the documents are furnished before court in substitution before it is handed over.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has not specified before me the precise pages for which the production of the certified copies must be insisted.