Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
GEORGE P.JOHN – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 478 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SR PP, SMT SEETHA S, SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR
For the Respondents: SHRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL, SRI.M.B.SOORI
The court established that in cases of disputed ownership over property, a detailed inquiry must precede the release order under Section 452 Cr.PC.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 452 - Release of property in dispute - The petitioner challenges the release of MO5 and MO6, claiming ownership, as per orders under Section 452 Cr.PC. Enquiry mandated before such orders if ownership is contested. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Legal principle on ownership disputes - Where ownership dispute exists, a thorough inquiry must precede any order under Section 452 Cr.PC regarding the custody of seized property. (Paras 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was involved as a prosecution witness in a theft case where gold bangles were stolen, and facing disputes over the return of seized property.
Findings of Court:
The court indicates that the prior judgments failed to conduct detailed inquiries, thereby necessitating a fresh evaluation by the Judicial Magistrate.
Issues: The main issue addresses whether adequate inquiries were conducted to ascertain the rightful ownership of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that ownership disputes require thorough examination before decisions on property release are made; simple rulings are insufficient without proper fact-finding.
Result: Criminal revision petition allowed; prior judgments set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the criminal case and property dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal principles surrounding ownership disputes and procedural requirements in criminal cases. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the prosecution witness No.5 in CC No.252/2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. The above case was charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. The allegation in CC No.252/2011 was that the accused therein had committed lurking house trespass by night and committed theft of 6 gold bangles weighing 11 sovereigns and a Nokia Mobile Phone belonging to the 2nd respondent herein who is the defacto complainant and prosecution witness No.7. MO5 gold ingot and MO6 gold pieces were seized from the revision petitioner on the allegation that he purchased bangles from the accused and converted it to gold ingots and gold pieces is the case of the prosecution.
2. During the trial, prosecution examined revision petitioner as PW5 and 2nd respondent as PW7. MO1 to MO5 were marked. During the course of the trial, the petitioner filed Annexure-A1 petition for release of MO5 and MO6 and the 2nd respondent filed Annexure-A2 for release of MO1 to MO6. Subsequently, as per Annexure-A3 judgment, the trial court acquitted the accused. By the same judgment, MO1 to MO4 were confiscated and MO5 and MO6 were returned to PW5, who is the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the above order, releasing of MO5 and MO6 to PW5, the 2nd respondent No.193/2012 before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur. The above Crl. Appeal was allowed as per Annexure-A6 judgment with a direction to release MO5 and MO6 to the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. I also heard the Public Prosecutor.
4. This revision petition is filed challenging an order passed under Section 452 Cr.PC. Originally, MO5 and MO6 were released to the petitioner as per Annexure-A3 judgment. A perusal of Annexure-A3 judgment would not show that a detailed enquiry is conducted while passing the order. It is true that the material objects were released to the petitioner as per Annexure-A3 judgment. The same is now reversed as per Annexure-A6 and MO5 and MO6 were now released to the 2nd respondent herein.
5. I am of the considered opinion that when there is any dispute regarding the ownership of the material object, a separate enquiry is desirable before passing orders under Section 452 Cr.PC. A perusal of the impugned order would not show that a detailed enquiry was conducted before passing the order. In an enquiry under Section 452 Cr.P.C , even Section 161 Cr.PC statement also can be considered. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Annexure-A6 and the judgment by which MO5 and MO6 were released to the revision petitioner is to be set aside and there can be a direction to the learned Magistrate to conduct an enquiry under Section 452 Cr.PC and thereafter pass appropriate orders, after hearing both sides.
Therefore, this Criminal revision Petition is allowed in the following manner:
1. Annexures-A3 and A6 judgments are set aside. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad is directed to conduct an enquiry for deciding who is entitled to MO5 and MO6 and pass appropriate orders under Section 452 Cr.PC, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
