Anil Kumar K.P vs State Of Kerala

Dr Kauser Edappagath, J

Annexure A3 order passed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C is under challenge in this Crl.M.C. The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in Crime No.413/2022 of Maradu Police Station.

The prosecution case in short is that during the period from May, 2021 to 11/3/2022, the accused persons 4 in numbers obtained a total sum of ₹46,48,806/- from the petitioner threatening him that they would publish his nude photos through social media.

According to the petitioner, the accused utilised the said amount to purchase gold and silver ornaments and Maruti Ciaz car bearing registration No.KL-29-M-3198. The investigating officer has seized the ornaments as well as the car and produced before the court below. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2294/2022 invoking Section 451 of Cr.P.C to release the gold ornaments, silver ornaments and the car. The court below after hearing the claim petitioner/petitioner herein and the learned prosecutor dismissed the said application.

I have heard Sri. Mansoor B.H., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The prosecution case is that utilising the money looted from the petitioner, the gold ornaments, silver ornaments and the car in question was purchased by the accused. The court below dismissed the application mainly holding that few other cases are also pending against the accused in like manner and as such it cannot be concluded that the gold ornaments, silver ornaments and the car were purchased utilising the money swindled from the petitioner alone. There are no other claimants. In the absence of any other claimants, the court below ought not have come to such a conclusion. The car cannot be exposed to sun and rain till the case is disposed of. It has to be released to a lawful claimant. The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat  [2003 (2) KLT 1089(SC)] has held that seized property cannot be kept in the court premises and has to be released to the lawful claimant. 6.   In these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the registration certificate stands in the name of the accused. Therefore, before passing an order to release the vehicle, the accused/the registered owner of the vehicle has to be heard.

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order stands set aside. The court below shall hear the petitioner and the accused and pass an order in accordance with law, taking into account the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra). In the absence of any other rival claimants, the fact that other cases are pending against the accused should not stand in the way of releasing the car, gold ornaments and silver ornaments to the petitioner. The court below shall dispose of the application within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.