ABDULLA SAIF HINDI Vs. K P MUHAMMEDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner assails the dismissal of the Criminal Appeal No. 375/2014 of the Sessions Court, Thalassery challenging the common order in CMP Nos. 6773/2008 and 810/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba.

(2.) The above applications arose from crime No.73/1994 on the files of Sreekandapuram Police station for offences punishable under sections 465,380 and 380(1) of IPC. The FIR was registered pursuant to a fax message sent from Doha by the father-in-law of the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner herein alleging that the first respondent herein, who was employed as house boy at their house in Doha, had decamped on 12/5/1994 carrying huge gold ornaments and other valuables. It was alleged that, he had fled to India. The accused/first respondent was arrested on 19/6/1994. Pursuant to his arrest, search was conducted at his house and gold ornaments were recovered from the house. Investigation continued, but final report was not filed for a long period. Ultimately, the accused approached this court by filing Crl.MC No. 3152/2006 with a request to quash the proceedings and all further proceedings pursuant to the arrest. This court, considering the long delay in completion of the investigation, quashed the proceedings. However, it was directed that the seized articles shall not be returned to the accused for a period of six months from the date of the judgment. It was also directed that, if in the meanwhile, any claimant comes forward, such claim shall be considered in accordance with law vis a vis, the claim of the petitioner for return of the articles. It was directed that, in such circumstance, release of the articles shall be as per the orders to be passed by the Magistrate on such claims. It was again directed that, if there was no such claimant, on the expiry of the period of six months, articles seized shall be released to the accused.

(3.) In the meanwhile, a person claiming to be the power of attorney of the revision petitioner, who is stated to be the son-inlaw of the defacto complainant, filed CMP No. 6773/2008 seeking custody of the gold ornaments. This was taken up and heard along with CMP No. 810/2009, filed by the accused seeking custody of same articles. Both the applications were jointly tried. On the side of the revision petitioner PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A2 to A7 were marked. There was no evidence on the side of the first respondent herein, who is the accused. The trial court, by a common order dismissed CMP No. 6773/2008 and allowed CMP No. 810/2009. This was carried in appeal No. 375/2014 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The Appellate Court by its judgment dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the trial court. This is under challenge in this revision.