The question raised for a decision in this revision is whether the civil court before which a document was produced and admitted in evidence is bound to return that document to the party who produced it notwithstanding that in relation to the said document an offence is said to be committed and the document is necessary in connection with investigation of the criminal case.

2. Petitioner before me is the plaintiff in O.S.No.207 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chengannur. That was a suit for declaration of title over certain shares claimed by the petitioner. The suit ended in an ex parte decree dated 29-11-2008 in favour of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the documents referred to herein were marked in the said suit on the side of petitioner. There was no appeal preferred against the ex parte decree by any of the respondents. In the meantime, the Detective Inspector, Crime Branch, C.I.D. Alappuzha preferred Application No.612 of 2009 before the learned Munsiff accompanied by a complaint presented to the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram and a copy of First Information Report requesting that as the documents produced by petitioner in the suit are involved in a case of forgery and for examination of the disputed signature, etc. in the said documents he, as investigating Officer requires the said documents. The Investigating Officer suspected that petitioner might seek closure of the case and return of the documents. Learned Munsiff on getting that application passed an order that the documents shall not be returned on the petitioner until further orders. On 19.11.2009 petitioner preferred an application to the learned Munsiff for return of the documents. On 25.01.2010 learned Munsiff passed the impugned order refusing to return the documents to the petitioner. That order is under challenge in this Revision petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that there is no provision either in the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Crl.P.C.”) or the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code’) which enabled the investigating Officer to get custody of documents produced before the civil court and marked in evidence. It is also contended by learned counsel that none of the provisions of O.13 of the Code enabled learned Munsiff to refuse to return the documents on the ground that the same are required for investigation of a criminal case. According to the learned counsel a reading of Rr.8 and 9 of O.13 of the Code along with R.134 of the Civil Rules of Practice (for short, the Rules”) unerringly show that once the document is admitted in evidence and its return is asked for by the party who produced it after the period of appeal is over the court has no alternative but to return the document. Learned counsel argued that the expression ‘may’ occurring in R.134 of the Rules has to be read as ‘shall’. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Punjalal v. Bhagwatprasad (AIR 1963 SC 120) and Official Liquidator v. Dhart Dhan (P) Ltd. (AIR 1977 SC 740). In support of his contention that after the document has been admitted in evidence and the case has been disposed off the court has no power to impound the document since the court has become functus officio, reliance is placed on the decisions in Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana (AIR 1961 SC 1655) and Varghese v. State of Kerala (1989 KLT 24). Learned Government Pleader in response contended that there is no provision in the Code which prevented the learned Munsiff from handing over the document, once it is shown that it is the subject matter of a criminal investigation to the officer investigating the case if the learned Munsiff is satisfied that in the ends of justice such a course is required to be adopted. Learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the Ss.91 and 102 of the Cr.P.C.

3. As the materials placed before me indicate, it is shown that in respect of the documents which petitioner wanted to get back from the court a criminal ca