ORDER

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1348/2021 of Kannur Town police station which was registered alleging offence under Sections 341, 353 and 506(i) read with 34 of the IPC besides under Section 3(1) of PDPP Act & Section 4(2) e & j of Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance read with 3 of Kerala Epidemic Disease Corona Virus Disease (Covid-19) Additional Regulations 2020. The allegation is that the petitioners had trespassed upon the Enforcement Regional Transport Office, Kannur and started recording the proceedings there, which was opposed by the officials. Thereafter, alleging that their official discharge of functions was obstructed, the crime was registered and Apple I phone (2 Nos.), a One Plus mobile, one Realme mobile and a Gopro Handi Cam which were used for video graphing the proceedings were seized by the police. In order to get interim custody of the items, the petitioners moved the trial court with C.M.P.No.2116/2021 and by the impugned order dated 27th July 2021, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners have moved this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

3. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the application.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners these gadgets are not material objects, question of getting Forensic Science Laboratory report does not arise at all and it was an unnecessary procedure adopted by the Investigating Officer and therefore the order is sought to be quashed.

5. After hearing counsel on both sides, I am not convinced that, at this stage the court can make any observation with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the procedure adopted by the Investigating Officer. It is the realm of the investigation to collect evidence to prove the allegations against the accused. In that process they sent the gadgets seized from the possession of the petitioners for getting report from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Kannur. The order of the learned Magistrate indicates that the items were sent on 16.08.2021. Therefore, question of returning the items to the interim custody of the petitioners does not arise now. Of course, once the report is received, the petitioners can move the trial court again with a similar petition. Leaving open that right, the Crl.M.C is disposed of.

No doubt, such electronic gadgets, if kept idle for long will become worthless. Therefore, the learned Magistrate is directed to see that the report is furnished and the gadgets are returned to the court at the earliest.

Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.