N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Joseph S/o. Joseph – Appellant
Versus
Neelakantan, S/o. Kasthuri rangan – Respondent
ORDER :
These petitions are filed by the person who claims release of the gold ingot marked as MO1 in C.C.No.37/1995 of J.F.C.M., Vaikom. The former (Crl.M.C.4427/03) is filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. while the latter (Crl.R.P.2035/03) is seen filed under Sec.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. During the pendency of the trial in C.C.No.37/1995 a petition was filed by the petitioner under Sec.451 Cr.P.C. for release of the gold ingot. That case, C.C.No.37/1995 was disposed of by the learned Magistrate as per judgment dated 3.6.1997. The accused therein was convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Secs.457 and 380 IPC, which attained finality. While pronouncing the judgment in C.C.No.37/1995 the learned Magistrate observed that a claim petition was filed by PW4 (the petitioner herein) for return of MO1 – gold ingot and that petition will be tried/enquired separately. On receipt of the notice issued in CMP No.2867/1996 (which was the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Sec.451 Cr.P.C.) a petition was filed by PW1 the de facto complainant in C.C.No.37/1995 (the respondent herein) claiming release of MO1-gold ingot stating that she is entitled to get release of the same. Both those
Govindaraj v. State of Kerala 1987 (2) KLT 1017
Joseph v. State of Kerala reported in 1997 (1) KLJ 764
Krishna Pillai v. Public Prosecutor 1987 (2) KLT 366
Puthiyadathu Kavu Devaswom Temple Committee v. Manoharan reported in [2002 (2) KLT 167]
State of Kerala v. Thiraviyam Panicker 1960 KLT 1051
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.