High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePartly allowed; disposed of.

Dominic alias Jolly v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No. 6294 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date
2015-01-06
Court Decision / Holding
The court partially allows the Cr.M.C. The cash of Rs.1,91,585 is to be released to the petitioner on the following conditions: (i) execute a bond for Rs.1,91,585 with two solvent sureties of equivalent sums; (ii) furnish property security by creating a charge on the property, after obtaining a value report and ensuring the Registrar records the charge; (iii) file an affidavit that the petitioner will not alienate or encumber the property pending disposal of the case; (iv) produce certified copies of the affidavit to the Registrar within three weeks. The mobile phone and other articles are kept in custody. The order directs the matter to be communicated to the trial court. The case is therefore disposed of in part.
Final Disposition
Partly allowed; disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Dominic alias Jolly

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala Ernakulam through the Sub Inspector of Police Ernakulam Central Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. M. Ziraj

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor K. K. Rajeev

Case Synopsis & Summary

Dominic alias Jolly, the accused in Crime No.1813/2013 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, sought interim release of seized cash and the Nokia mobile phone under Cril.M.C.No.4909/2013 in CC No.244/2013 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The police had seized Rs.1,91,585, a mobile phone, blank signed cheques and stamp papers during a raid, on allegations of illegal money lending and charging exorbitant interest under Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Exorbitant Interest Act. The CJM, after investigation, took cognizance and framed charges; in Cr.M.P.No.4909/2013, the court released only the mobile phone and other articles as personal belongings on bond and sureties, while the cash was not released. The petitioner challenged this under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Public Prosecutor opposed release of cash, arguing it could be misused. The High Court relied on Sasikumar v. State of Kerala (2013 (2) KHC 886) to allow interim custody of the amount on security, while permitting the court below to decide the form of security. The order ultimately directs release of Rs.1,91,585 on conditions: bond for the amount with two solvent sureties, property security, and an affidavit not to encumber the property, with the Registrar to reflect the charge. The mobile phone and other articles remain with the court. The case is disposed of in part by this order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders ActSection 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Exorbitant Interest ActSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no purpose will be served by keeping the seized money, and there was no complaint that it was intended for money lending as alleged; he is ready to abide by any condition. He argued that releasing the mobile phone would affect the trial since it is evidence, and that the cash, which is the petitioner's own property, should be released under conditions similar to those recognized in prior decisions, such as securing the amount through bonds or other security.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed releasing the cash, contending that it could be misused if released; argued that the mobile phone is crucial evidence and releasing the cash and phone may prejudice the investigation and trial.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sasikumar v. State of Kerala2013 (2) KHC 886PositiveCited to justify interim custody of seized amount subject to security, influencing the present court’s conditional release order.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Dominic alias Jolly v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/16TH POUSHA, 19361** **Crl.MC.No. 6294 of 2013 () ---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 244/2013 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 1813/2013 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-------------------** **DOMINIC ALIAS JOLLY, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.C.T.FRANCIS, CHERUMUTTATH HOUSE, ST.AUGUSTINE ROAD KOCHI-682 018, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ** **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K. RAJEEV** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6294 of 2013 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE-1.TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.1813/2013 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.** **ANNEXURE-2.TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 12/09/2013 IN CRIME NO.1813/2013 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-3.TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CJMC, ERNAKLAM AS CRL.MP NO.4909/2013 IN CC NO.244/2013.** **ANNEXURE-4.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/11/2013 IN CRL.MP NO.4909/2013 IN CC NO.244/2013 ON THE FILE OF CJMC, ERNAKULAM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL** **------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **cl** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.6294 of 2013 .................................................. Dated this the 6[th] day of January, 2015. ## **O R D E R** The petitioner in C.M.P.No.4909/2013 in C.C.No.244/2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam is the petitioner herein. He is the accused in the above crime which was registered on the basis of a seizure effected by the Ernakulam Central Police Officials on getting an information that the petitioner was conducting illegal money lending and lending money for exorbitant interest and accordingly they searched his scooter parked in front of a shop and it was found that he was having cash of Rs.1,91,585/-, a Nokia mobile phone and certain blank signed cheques and stamp papers and accordingly they seized the same and registered Crime No.1813/2013 of Ernakulam Central Police station against the petitioner alleging offences under Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and Section 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Exorbitant Interest Act. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.244/2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner Crl.M.C.No.6294 of 2013 2 filed C.M.P.No.4909/2013 for interim custody of the articles seized and the learned Magistrate by the impugned order released only items 2 and 4, which were received along with other articles in T.No.91/13 as they were his personal belongings, on executing a bond for Rs.One lakh with two solvent sureties and on condition of producing the articles as when required. The prayer for releasing the mobile phone and cash was rejected by the court below. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that no purpose will be served by keeping the money and there was no complaint that it was intended for money lending as alleged by the prosecution. He is prepared to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor Crl.M.C.No.6294 of 2013 3 opposed the application on the ground that if it is released, he is likely to misuse the amount. 5. It is an admitted fact that the police has seized the amount and the Nokia mobile phone along with the other articles from the possession of the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that there is no dispute regarding the fact that money belongs to the petitioner and there is no other claim for the money also. The allegation was that it was being used for illegal money lending so as to get exorbitant interest but it was denied by the petitioner. The Nokia mobile phone is a piece of evidence collected by the investigating agency for proving the transaction and releasing of the mobile phone at this stage will affect the trial of the case. So the court below was perfectly justified in not releasing the mobile phone as interim custody to the petitioner. 6. As regards the cash is concerned, this Court in the decision reported in **Sasikumar v. State of Kerala (2013 (2) KHC 886),** in a similar case, has held that interim custody Crl.M.C.No.6294 of 2013 4 of the amount can be given subject to deposit of sufficient security before the trial court. In that case, this Court has directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee. But, in other cases, this Court has observed that security mentioned in the decision need not always be bank guarantee but some other security can be substituted so as to secure realization of the amount later if it has been confiscated. So under the circumstances, this Court feels that cash can be released to the petitioner on executing a bond for Rs.1,91,585/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and on further condition that the petitioner furnishing property security for the said amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakuam. For the purpose of ascertaining the value of the property, the court can get report from the Tahsildar or Village Officer regarding the value of the property and after getting the report, the court may direct the petitioner to execute the bond making the property as security for this Crl.M.C.No.6294 of 2013 5 amount making a charge on the property and inform the same to the concerned Registrar's office so that the charge created can be entered in the respective registers maintained in the Sub Registrar's office. Further, directing the petitioner to file an affidavit before the court below that he will not alienate or encumber the property during the pendency of the case will also be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. So the order passed by the court below can be modified to the extent as follows: The court below is directed to release the amount of Rs.1,91,585/- seized from the possession of the petitioner on the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,91,585/with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. ii. The petitioner shall furnish property security for the above said amount by executing separate bond scheduling the property which he intends to give as security to the Crl.M.C.No.6294 of 2013 6 satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam creating a charge and on satisfaction, the court shall accept the bond creating charge on the property for the said amount and inform the same to the concerned Registrar's Office so as to enable them to enter the same in the respective registers kept in the Registrar's Office for that purpose . iii. The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate that he will not alienate or encumber the property till the disposal of the case. After filing the affidavit, he is directed to take certified copy of the same from the concerned court and produce before the concerned Registrar's office within three weeks from the date of filing of such affidavit before the concerned court. With the above conditions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed in part and disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below at the earliest. Sd/- **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** /true copy/ cl P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.6294 of 2013 7