BINDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure III order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Thiruvananthapuram, over an application moved by petitioner under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short the 'Code', is challenged in the petition under Section 482 of the Code. Petitioner was one among the charge witnesses in S.C. No. 2210 of 2006 on the file of the above court, in which some accused persons were tried for various offences under the Penal Code, including an offence on dacoity. During the commission of such offence, which took place in a textile shop, a gold chain worn by the petitioner was snatched away by one among the accused threatening her life, is one among the allegations in the prosecution case. Trial proceeded against some of the accused ended in conviction of one of the accused and acquittal of the others. One among the accused indicted of the offences remained at large and the case against him was split up to proceed further as and when his presence is secured. Petitioner applied for release of her gold chain which was produced and later exhibited in evidence as a material object in the case when trial proceeded against some among the accused. That application was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding that in Annexure-I judgment a direction had been issued for retaining the material object (Gold chain) for the trial of the absconding accused (A4). When that being so any order on the petition moved would amount to review of the earlier order was the view formed by Sessions Judge.

(2.) The direction given in Annexure-I judgment to retain the material object for the trial of the case against the absconding accused (A4) interdicts him from passing any order for its release is the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Obviously the Additional Sessions Judge failed to take note that whatever be the direction that was given in Annexure -I judgment where it did not finally dispose of the material object produced by the court by an order under Section 452 of the Code, then, he is fully competent to pass further orders with respect to such object under Section 451 of the Code. Though trail against some of the accused is over, further proceeding is required as against one of the accused, who remain at large, cannot be a ground for retention of the material object, which, admittedly belong to the petitioner for whom it had been deprived of for no fault of her. In such cases the court is bound to take note of the guidelines given in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat,2003 KerLT 1089 whereunder the Apex court has emphasized the need for passing expeditious orders for speedy disposal of material objects produced in the court, and, if necessary by taking adequate measures in the preparation of a mahazar, taking of photos etc for using them as evidence in the case, if need be. In Ashok Kumar V. State of Kerala,2012 4 KHC 134 considering a case involving a similar fact situation where trial of the absconding accused has been delayed indefinitely, I have expressed the view that the court has to pass appropriate interim orders as may be found essential for release of the articles produced for interim custody to the rightful claimant.

(3.) Annexure-III order is set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to take note of the guidelines given in the aforesaid decisions and pass appropriate orders on the application for release of the gold ornament by the petitioner, expeditiously. At any rate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall pass orders on the application of the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.