IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2016/31ST SRAVANA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 5043 of 2016 CMP 1842/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA DATED 03-06-2016 CRIME NO. 156/2016 OF MELATTUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S): KOMARASWAMI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. KARUPPANNA GOUNDAR, RAMGANAYIKANDOOR, KULIYAKKAD, VELLIRAVELI, ERODE DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. (OWNER OF A TRACTOR BEARING REGISTRATION NO.TN-40/A 4314). BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELATTOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ Crl.MC.No. 5043 of 2016 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 14.4.2016 IN CRIME NO.156/2016 OF MELATTOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.6.2016 IN [CASE NUMBER] ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA. ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.6.2016 IN [CASE NUMBER] ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ [ENTITY], J [CASE NUMBER] Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2016 O R D E R
1.This petition is filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
2.The petitioner is the registered owner of a tractor bearing Reg.No.TN-40-A-4314, which was seized by the 1st respondent alleging violation of the provisions of [SECTION], [SECTION] of the [ACT] ("[ACT]" for short) and under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The petitioner filed an application for getting the interim custody of the vehicle, which was allowed by the learned Magistrate by Annexure-2 order. The petitioner is aggrieved by condition Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the aforesaid order.
3.Heard the rival submissions.
4.It is submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Magistrate was persuaded by the guidelines issued by a Full Bench of this Court in in [PRECEDENT] while releasing the vehicle. The insistence of depositing 30 % of the value of the vehicle and the production of Bank guarantee for the balance amount are onerous conditions according to the learned Counsel. It is further submitted that [PRECEDENT] (supra) was rendered while dealing with the release of vehicles seized under the provisions of the [ACT]. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of this Court in [PRECEDENT] to contend that this Court has taken a view that the dictum of law laid down in [PRECEDENT] (supra) cannot be made applicable while considering applications seeking interim custody of the vehicles seized invoking the provisions of the [ACT]. Finally, the learned counsel submits that the provisions of [ACT] as well as the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as "the Transportation Rules,2015") were challenged before this Court and referring to the interim orders dated 1.9.2015 in W.A.1889 and 1890 of 2015 and also the order dated 14.6.2016 in W.A.1126 and 1129 of 2016, contends that the vehicles were ordered to be released subject to conditions and those conditions be imposed in the instant case as well.
5.Having regard to the facts and circumstances and taking note of the conditions imposed in the Writ Appeals, I am of the view that the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate can be suitably modified. In substitution of condition Nos.1, 2 and 3, the learned Magistrate is directed to release the vehicle on deposit of an amount of Rs.25,000/- and on condition that the petitioner executes a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties. All other conditions shall remain as such. This order shall be subject to modification later if the situation so warrants. Petition is disposed of as above.
[ENTITY] JUDGE vps