IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3975 of 2009() -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.608/2009 OF VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): CLAIM PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------- MRS.MANI SAHADEVAN, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.LATE SAHADEVAN, H.NO.1/255, ALINKATHARA, CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-27. BY ADVS. MR.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, MR. JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE, MR.P.G.PRAMOD, MR.RAHUL KANDAMPULLY. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE S.H.O., VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, VARAPUZHA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.3975 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 14th January 2010 O R D E R Omni van No.KL-7.BG-6007 was seized in crime No.608/2009 of Varapuzha police station registered for the offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transporting the stolen articles. Petitioner claiming to be a registered owner, filed C.M.P.4271/2009 under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the vehicle. By Annexure-A5 order the petition was dismissed. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order and to get interim custody of the vehicle. Crmc 3975/09 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that petitioner is a widow and income from the vehicle is the main income of the petitioner and if the vehicle is retained by the police during investigation and trial, its value and utility will be reduced or damaged, as it will be exposed to sun and rain and petitioner will also loose the income and she is prepared to abide by any condition and therefore, the vehicle is to be released and learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the petition. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the vehicle was modified to Crmc 3975/09 3 take stolen articles and the investigation so far reveals that the very same vehicle was used for taking stolen articles in crime Nos.530/2009, 106/2009, 104/2001, 237/2009, 112/2009, 609/2009, 610/2009, 611/2009 and 612/2009 and in such circumstances, the vehicle may not be released to the petitioner at this stage, as it is required for investigation. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that petitioner is not entitled to get the vehicle released before completing the investigation. Hence I find no reason to quash the order as sought for. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.