IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 550 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------ [CMP.NO.327/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANANTHAVADY] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------ RATHEESH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KUNCHIKRISHNN, PAPPINISSERI POYIL HOUSE, CHERUKUNNU, KANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.M.SASINDRAN, MR.JOHNY THOMAS RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, CRIME NO.13 OF 2009 OF THALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. I.B. PRAMOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 550 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 4th day of March,2010 ORDER By Annexure AIII order Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Mananthavady allowed CMP 327/2009 filed by the petitioner under section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure on conditions. The condition was that petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee for Rs.24,50,000/- as security. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said condition in Annexure AIII order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Rs.24,50,000/- was seized by the police from KA-03/MK 6717 car at 43rd Mile Thavinjal of Mananthavady-Thalassery Road along with Crl.M.C.550/2010 2 7.520 litres of beer m.litres of brandy and 1.65 litres of whisky on 24.1.2009 at about 6.20 p.m from the petitioner and the second accused. Crime 13/2009 was originally registered for the offences under section 55(a) of Abkari Act and Section 41(1) (d) and 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The cash was produced before the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate accepted the case of the petitioner that Rs.24,50,000/- belongs to the petitioner as he obtained it under an agreement for sale and in such circumstances granted interim custody on conditions. The argument of the learned counsel is that if petitioner is to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.24,50,000/- there is no necessity to grant an interim custody and he is prepared to furnish sufficient property as security and to that effect Annexure AIII order may be modified. 4. The State has not challenged Annexure AIII order. Therefore the only question is regarding Crl.M.C.550/2010 3 the security directed to be furnished by the learned Magistrate. There is force in the submission that furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.24,50,000/- would tantamount to denial of the interim custody. If what is needed is security for the amount, learned Magistrate could have directed the petitioner to furnish sufficient security for the amount before realising the amount. 5. In such circumstances, petition is disposed modifying Annexure AIII order to the effect that before realising the amount petitioner shall furnish sufficient security before the learned Magistrate which could either be movable or immovable properties or bank guarantee. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006