IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1860 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ORDER IN MC.91/2008 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ PARAMESWARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. MANIYAN PILLA, CHANIVELI HOUSE, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JUDE ISSAC RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUHAMMA POLICE STATION, MUHAMMA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.1860 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 ORDER A car bearing Registration No.KL.04.V/9410 was seized by the police and was produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate as an item of unclaimed property by the Muhamma police. The petitioner filed an application for release of the said vehicle. The Sub Divisional Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that certificate of registration in original has not been produced and what was produced were only unattested photocopies of the certificate of registration and notice of transfer of ownership. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Magistrate could have directed the petitioner to produce the original in which event the petitioner could have produced the original before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. After discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays only for an opportunity to produce all relevant documents before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and claim release of the vehicle to him. Crl.M.C. No.1860 of 2008 2 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the report of the police before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the impugned order shows, had alleged that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle and another person is the registered owner of the vehicle. The learned Public Prosecutor however submits that the petitioner can be given the option to produce all documents before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to justify his claim for release. The prosecution may be given opportunity to raise objections, if any, and the Sub Divisional Magistrate may be directed to pass appropriate orders on merits, it is submitted. 4. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the challenge against the impugned order can be upheld; the same can be set aside and the petitioner can be granted a further opportunity to substantiate his claim for release of the vehicle to him. Needless to say that the Sub Divisional Magistrate must give notice to the police and give opportunity to the police to raise all objections, if any. 5. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed in part; b) The impugned order is set aside; Crl.M.C. No.1860 of 2008 3 c) The Sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to dispose of the petitioner's claim afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity to produce all relevant materials before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and after giving the police an opportunity to raise objections if any. 6. The Sub Divisional Magistrate shall ensure that the matter is disposed of afresh as expeditiously as possible. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-