Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946 CRIME NO.2761/2023 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2024 IN CRMP NO.605 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KALAMASSERY PETITIONER/ACCUSED: PRADEEP KUMAR K.V. AGED 42 YEARS S/O. K.V. KUNJIKANNAN, VARIKKULAM HOUSE, KOLATHUR VILLAGE, KOLATHUR POST, KASARGOD, KERALA - 671 541. PROPRIETOR OF BHUVANESWARI INFOTECH AND MANPOWER SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD. EDAPALLY, ERNAKULAM, KERALA., PIN - 683024 BY ADVS. BALAMURALI K.P. VIVEK VENUGOPAL HARIPRIYA.M RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
----------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 3894 of 2024 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024
ORDER
In an application under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery directed the mobile phones and identity cards of the petitioner to be released on conditions. Among the conditions, it was stipulated as follows:- “2. Petitioner shall furnish photographs of the mobile phones from four angles along with C.D duly attested by the Investigating Officer and petitioner and shall comply Sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act.” Petitioner is aggrieved by the said condition No.2 in the
order dated 11-04-2024.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
conditions have been imposed in a mechanical manner without considering the fact that what was sought to be released is only a mobile phone for which two side photographs alone can be taken. Further, since the phone is produced before the Court as a material object, the attestation by the Investigation Officer would be difficult. It was also submitted that compliance to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is not at all necessary, as the phone is not even required to be sent to the Forensic Lab as observed by the learned magistrate itself.
3. I have heard Sri.Balamurali K.P., as well as Sri. Renjith T.R., the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Taking the photograph of the mobile phone from four
angles does not serve any purpose. Similarly, since the phone is under the custody of the Court, attestation by the Sheristadar would suffice instead of the Investigating Officer. The condition No.2 in the impugned order has to be therefore modified.
5. Having regard to the nature of the object that has been
directed to be released and also having regard to the observations in the order under consideration, I am of the view that condition No.2 in the impugned order can be modified as follows: "Petitioner shall furnish photographs of the mobile phone from the front and back sides duly attested by the Sheristadar of the Court." With the above modifications, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM/20/5/24 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3894/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-I THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P. NO. 605/2024 IN CRIME NO. STATION, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE, KALAMASSERRY.