Back
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dilip – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
What is the court's ruling on interim custody of the mobile phone (thondi article No. T396/2012) seized in Crime No.1533 of 2012? What are the guidelines or principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai regarding disposal of seized property under Section 451 Cr.P.C. as applied to this case? What is the court's conclusion regarding Annexure-A2 order and the petitioner’s application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for interim custody?
Key Points: - The court held that interim custody of the mobile phone (thondi article No. T396/2012) cannot be granted to the petitioner, as retention is necessary in the interest of justice and to prevent prejudice to the prosecution. (!) - It upheld Annexure-A2, the order dismissing Annexure-A1 under Section 451 Cr.P.C., and refused to interfere, citing the seriousness of the alleged offence and the likelihood of destruction or alteration of information if released. (!) (!) - The decision discusses and applies principles from Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2003) and reiterates that Section 451 Cr.P.C. empowers prompt, necessary custody decisions and that property should not be retained longer than absolutely necessary; custody must be decided based on facts of each case. (!) (!) (!)
C.T. Ravikumar, J.
The petitioner herein is the third accused in Crime No.1533 of 2012 of Pala Police Station registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 115, 118, 307 and 388 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Even as per paragraph 2 of this petition the gist of the allegation is that the second accused entered into a criminal conspiracy with the first accused to commit murder of one Sreenivasan as the said Sreenivasan was on inimical terms with the second accused. According to the prosecution, it was in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder of Sreenivasan that the second accused hired a car and handed it over to the first accused. The first accused allegedly conspired with the 3rd and 4th accused thereafter and extorted a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the second accused by threatening him that they would inform the act of attempt to commit murder of Sreenivasan to police. Evidently, as part of the investigation in that crime the mobile phone belonging to the petitioner was seized under a seizure mahazar and the same was produced before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pala as thondi article No.T396/201
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
