IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1492 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRL.M.P.266/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD CRIME NO.852/2008 OF VATANAPPILLY POLICESTATION. REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT BELOW ------------------------------------------------------ SHAJAHAN,S/O.HANEEFA,AGED 30 YEARS, PILLAKKODE HOUSE,KOLAZY AMSOM AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT BELOW AND STATE ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION,VADANAPPILLY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1492 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondents. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no objection in giving interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions since investigation of the case is over. 2. Case is that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was allegedly used for escorting the vehicle in which the contraband was allegedly transported. Learned magistrate dismissed the application for interim custody of the vehicle as the application was opposed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the reason that if commission of the offence is proved the vehicle is liable to be confiscated. The question of confiscation comes only after the offence is proved even as per the order impugned. Now, the State is not opposing the prayer for interim custody of the vehicle. There is no reason why the vehicle should be kept idle and get damaged. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition but subject to conditions. Resultantly this revision is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside and Crl.M.P.No.266 of 2009 in Crime No.852 of 2008 of Vatanappilly Police Station is allowed as follows:- Crl.R.P.No.1492/2009 2 Interim custody of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL7/AB 923 will be given to the petitioner on his executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two sureties each for the like sum and subject to the following conditions: i. Petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court in the same condition it is taken delivery by him. ii. Petitioner shall not alienate or encumber or otherwise disposed of the vehicle during the period the bond remaining in force. iii. Petitioner shall not use the said vehicle for any purpose otherwise than as allowed by the permit. Crl.M.A.No.4525 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks Crl.R.P.No.1492/2009 3