Ayubkhan v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/11TH BHADRA, 1937 Crl.MC.No. 1933 of 2015 ---------------------------------- CMP 7629/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KANNUR -------------------- PETITIONER/THIRD PARTY:
--------------------------------------- AYUBKHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ABBAS, PEARL CASTLE, ANCHAMPEEDIKA, KANNUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.BHARATHAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ
Crl.MC.No. 1933 of 2015 ---------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ------------------------------------------ ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WITH PETITION IN C.M.P.7629/2014 ANNEXURE-II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.7629/14 ON THE FILE OF JFCM COURT-I,KANNUR.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES -------------------------------------------- NIL.
/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
................................................................ CRL. M.C. No. 1933 of 2015 ............................................................... Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2015
O R D E R
The petitioner has applied before the court below seeking return of his title deed No.2932/2010 which was seized in connection with Crime No.642/2014 of the Kannur Town Police Station. When the custody of that document has been sought for by the petitioner, the court below has passed Annexure II order. It is true that Annexure II order is full of factual errors and mistakes. The court below has taken the view that what has been sought for is an agreement allegedly executed by another person. 2.
Whatever it is, the said document is required for the continued proceedings in the case against the accused. The document has been seized from the possession of the accused and not from the possession of the petitioner, who
CRL.M.C.No. 1933 of 2015 -: 2 :- is a third party. In such case, the said document cannot be ordered to be returned to the petitioner. For the purposes mentioned in the petition, the petitioner can obtain a certified copy of the document from the concerned sub-registry, if required. Matters being so, there is no merit in this Crl.M.C. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.
ul/- // True Copy // PS to Judge