High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-08-07Petition disposed of with modifications; interi...

Suresh P.N. v. State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police, Kalady

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.4456 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan, J.
Judgment Date: 2014-08-07
Court Decision / Holding: The court disposed of the petition by modifying the conditional order. The bank guarantee for Rs.38,36,622 was replaced with a requirement for property security for the same amount, to be created by charging a schedule property and endorsed with the Sub Registrar for encumbrance. All other conditions were retained or adjusted as deemed appropriate. The interim custody arrangement is thus continued, but secured via property rather than bank guarantee.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed of with modifications; interim security arrangement amended to allow property security in place of a bank guarantee; other conditions adjusted as necessary.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Suresh P.N.

Respondents

State of Kerala
Sub Inspector of Police, Kalady

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Saiby Jose Kidangoor

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. Sareena P. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Suresh P.N. challenging an interim custody order in CMP No.2153/2013 arising from Crime No.559/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor. The Petitioner, arrayed as an accused in the crime, had cash amounting to Rs. 38,36,622 along with sale deeds and the vehicle RC book seized during a police search on the allegation of illegal money lending. The Magistrate allowed interim custody of the seized items on various conditions, including a bank guarantee for Rs. 38,36,622, two solvent sureties, and other undertakings. The petitioner contends there is no evidence of illegal money lending and that the recipients of cheques have filed affidavits stating no grievance, rendering the stringent condition unjustified. The Public Prosecutor opposes the petition, arguing the articles are required as evidence and that the accused operated a money lending business, so release should not impact the case. The High Court notes the Magistrate based the decision on Sasikuamr v. State of Kerala and acknowledges a contrary decision in which the same principle was distinguished, permitting security other than a bank guarantee. In light of this, the court modifies the condition by directing the petitioner to furnish property security for Rs.38,36,622 to the satisfaction of the trial court, with endorsement of a charge on the property at the Sub Registrar’s Office, while keeping other conditions intact or adjusted. The petition is disposed of accordingly, balancing evidence preservation with fair interim relief.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends there is no evidence that he runs an illegal money-lending business. Notices and affidavits from those who received cheques indicate no grievance, undermining the basis for stringent interim custody conditions. He asserts the bank guarantee condition is unwarranted and urges the Court to allow alternative security, including property security, arguing that deposit of security need not exclusively be a bank guarantee. He points to the need to preserve evidence while avoiding undue hardship.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and prosecution oppose the petition, arguing that the seized cash and documents are instrumental evidence for the pending trial and that the petitioner’s alleged money-lending activity justifies stringent interim measures. They maintain that the bank guarantee provides security for the amount and helps safeguard the state’s interests if there is a failure to redeposit or if further orders are required. They contend the court should not release such articles before trial without adequate security.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sasikuamr v. State of Kerala	2013 (2) KHC 886	Distinguished	The Magistrate relied on Sasikuamr to justify a bank guarantee in interim custody; the Kerala High Court distinguished that decision in another context, recognizing that deposit of security may be satisfied by other forms, such as property security, thereby guiding the present modification.

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 Suresh P.N. v. State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police, Kalady 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** # **THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/16TH SRAVANA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4456 of 2014** **--------------------------CMP NO.2153/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, PERUMBAVOOR CRIME NO. 559/2013 OF KALADY POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **..........** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-------------------------------------** **SURESH P.N., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PARAKKATTU HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, KALADY 683 584.** **BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.** ## **2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,** **KALADY POLICE STATION, KALADY 683 574.** **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA P.GEORGE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIO ON 07-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4456 of 2014** **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE:** **-------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A. COPY OF ORDER IN CMP NO.2153/2013 IN CRIME NO.559/13 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.4456 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 7[th] day of August, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed in CMP.No.2153/2013 in Crime No.559/2013 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner has been arrayed as the accused in Crime No.559/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor and as part of the search conducted by the investigating officer, cash worth Rs. Rs.38,36,622/-, along with Registration Certificate Book of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL.257358 and three sale deeds were seized and produced before the court. The petitioner was arrested and later released on bail. He filed CMP.No.2153/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor for interim custody of the cash, sale deeds and Registration Certificate Book of the vehicle and that was allowed by the learned Magistrate with certain conditions. Crl.M.C.No.4456 of 2014 2 One of the conditions is to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.38,36,622/-. That condition is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact there is no evidence to show that the petitioner is conducting illegal money lending business. In fact, the persons, who have been given the cheques, have filed affidavits before the court below stating that they have no grievance against the petitioner. But, in spite of that fact, the learned Magistrate has imposed stringent conditions. 5. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the case against the petitioner was that he is conducting money lending business and the court below should not have released the articles because that articles are required as evidence at the time of trial. 6. It is an admitted fact that the police had conducted search of the house of the petitioner when they got information that the petitioner was conducting illegal money lending business, (the legality of which will be challenged by the Crl.M.C.No.4456 of 2014 3 petitioner in appropriate proceedings according to the petitioner) and seized cash of Rs.38,36,622/-, three sale deeds and registration certificate of vehicle with No.KL.257358 are produced before the court below. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has filed application for interim custody of those articles as CMP.No.2153/2013 and the learned Magistrate by Annexure-A order allowed the application on following conditions: “1. MP is allowed. 2. Cash worth Rs.38,36,622/and aforementioned documents are released to the petitioner on interim custody on his executing a bond for Rupees 40 lakhs with two solvent sureties each for the like amount. 3. Sureties shall produce attested copy of their title deed and latest tax receipts. 4. petitioner shall furnish Bank Guarantee from a Nationalized Bank for an amount of Rs.38,36,622/-. 5. Petitioner shall file an affidavit before this court undertaking that he will redeposit the amount before the court as and when directed. 6. Junior Superintendent is directed to Crl.M.C.No.4456 of 2014 4 prepare an inventory in respect of the currency notes before release of the same. 7. Petitioner shall produce certified copies of title deeds and RC book before this court”. 7. The 4[th] condition that the petitioner will have to furnish bank guarantee from a nationalized Bank for an amount of Rs.38,36,622/- for releasing the cash is now under challenge. The court cannot found fault for imposing such condition because the learned Magistrate has relied on a decision reported in **Sasikuamr v. State of Kerala** (2013 (2) KHC 886), where this Court has held that in money lending cases when interim custody of the amount has to be given, then sufficient deposit of security has to be obtained and in that case bank guarantee was insisted. But, this Court, in another decision had distinguished that decision and come to a conclusion that deposit of sufficient security does not always mean bank guarantee alone, but some other security to the sanctification of the court namely property security also can be imposed. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is prepared to produce property security for this amount. So considering this circumstance, this Court feels that Condition Crl.M.C.No.4456 of 2014 5 No.4 directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the amount of Rs.38,36,622/- can be modified as follows: 8. The petitioner is directed to produce property security for the amount of Rs.38,36,622/- to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor and execute a security bond showing that the property as a schedule to the document creating a charge for this amount on the property and on execution of such bond, the learned Magistrate is directed to inform the creation of charge to the concerned Sub Registrar's Office, so that they can endorse the same in the respective encumbrance register regarding the charge created on the property. The direction issued by the Magistrate to produce title deeds of the sureties is also modified to the extent that after verification of the title deeds, the lower court is directed to return the title deeds to the sureties, but they should file an undertaking that they will not alienate or encumber the property during the pendency of the case and they should also produce attested copy of the title deeds before the court below and the court below can after verifying the original with the attested copy, accept the attested copy and return the originals to the sureties. All other Crl.M.C.No.4456 of 2014 6 conditions imposed by the court below will remain in force. With the above modifications, the petition is disposed of. **Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4456 of 2014 7