K. SREEDHAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) GOVERNMENT Advocate takes notice for the State.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of a Zen car bearing No. KA-12-N-4699. The said car was stolen by the accused. On a complaint the police have registered a case and laid a charge-sheet in C. C. No. 269/2000 on the file of the Prl. JMFC, Virajpet. The prosecution version supports the contention of the petitioner that he is the owner of the car and was the subject matter of theft. The case is pending trial. The interim custody of the car was given to the petitioner under Section 457, Cr. P. C. by the JMFC, on certain conditions. The chief condition being that the petitioner shall keep the car in his custody intact and shall not alienate until the disposal of the case. After taking interim custody, the petitioner made another application before the JMFC submitting that the petitioner has taken finance from the Co-operative Bank while purchasing the car, the interest liability is mounting up and he is unable to make arrangements for repayment of the loan. Therefore, intends to sell the car for repaying the debt liability to the bank. In that connection, sought permission of the Court to permit him to sell the car. The trial Court rejected the request. In Crl. Revision Petition No. 13/2002, the Sessions Judge Kodagu, confirmed the order of the JMFC and rejected the revision. Being aggrieved the present petition is filed.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the material discussions made in the impugned orders, it appears that there are three accused in the criminal case and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are in judicial custody. Accused No. 1 is absconding. Perhaps the case against accused No. 1 is likely to be split up. Even assuming the case against accused Nos. 2 and 3 is expeditiously concluded, for want of other accused split up charge-sheet would be pending and the petitioner has to suffer the restrictions of the conditional order prohibiting alienation till the disposal of the case. It is not known when the absconding accused is likely to be traced and the trial against him will be concluded. The indefinite and uncertain situation pestering the complainant prompted him to make an application to permit him to alienate the car.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the counsel for the State and the petitioner, I find that the grievance made out by the petitioner is genuine. Of course, in the usual course of routine conditional orders are passed while delivering the property to the interim custody. When the property has any evidentiary value, it is to be kept intact and to ensure its production during the course of evidence for the purpose of marking as a material object the condition of non alienation is imposed. However, when the property has no evidentiary value and only the value of the property is to be properly secured for passing of final order under Section 452, Cr. P. C. , the necessity of keeping such properties intact by imposing onerous conditions, prohibiting its alienation or transfer would not be necessary in law.

( 5 ) THE production of property which has evidentiary value during evidence is a part of a fair trial. With the advanced technology, it is not necessary that the original of the property inevitably has to be preserved for the purpose of evidence in the changed context of times. The reception of secondary evidence is permitted in law. The techniques of photography and photo copying are far advanced and fully developed. Movable property of any nature can be a subject matter of photography and taking necessary photographs of all the features of the property clearly is not a impossible task in photography and photo copying. Besides, the mahazar could be drawn clearly describing the features and dimensions of the movable properties which are subject matters of criminal trial. Many a time, we find as a routine course, the Courts impose condition of non alienation and to keep the property intact without alteration in any manner. Many a time such conditions act harshly upon rightful

Click Here to Read the rest of this document