IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 275 OF 2011() --------------------------------------- CMP.3523/2010 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.A.SHANAVAS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 31 YEARS, PAREKKATTIL HOUSE, NOCHIMA, NAD (PO), ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REP.BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, EDAPPALLY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.275 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-I, order dated December 29, 2010 on C.M.P. No.3523 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam arising from Crime No.13860 of 2010 of the City Traffic Police Station. Vehicle belonging to the petitioner is allegedly involved in an offence punishable under Sec.304 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that the driver of the said vehicle drove it in such a manner that it hit a car and six persons travelling in it were killed and thereby the driver committed the offence as alleged. Petitioner sought interim custody of his vehicle. That application was dismissed by Annexure-I, order. It is contended by learned counsel that it is not necessary to retain the vehicle in the custody of court. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. It is seen from Annexure-I, order that learned Magistrate was not inclined to release the vehicle at that stage of the investigation for the reason that paint sample from the vehicle CRL.M.C. No. 275 of 2011 -: 2 :- was not collected and custody of the vehicle was required for further investigation. That order does not preclude petitioner from moving fresh application before the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate again to release the vehicle and if any such application is preferred learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same in accordance with law having regard to the issue regarding the need to retain the vehicle in court custody as expeditiously as possible. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv