IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4973 of 2010() ------------------------------- CMP.6104/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL CR. NO. 730/2010 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN THE CMP ------------------------------------------------- GOPAKUMAR C., S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, SREE RATHNAM, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4973 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 19th day of January, 2011 ORDER This petition is in challenge of Annexure-6, order dated November 29, 2010 refusing to release the vehicle allegedly involved in the case to the petitioner on interim custody for the reason that the matter is pending consideration before the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Case is that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was used for commission of offences punishable under Sec.16 of Kerala Kerosene Control Order, 1968 r/w 3 and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. Police seized the vehicle. While so petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the said vehicle filed C.M.P.No.104 of 2010 before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal for interim custody of the vehicle. That application was dismissed by the impugned order. Learned counsel contends that petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that in view of Sec.6(E) of the Essential Commodities Act, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to release the vehicle. 3. Learned Magistrate observed that since the matter is pending before the District Collector (in connection with confiscation proceeding) the request for custody cannot be Crl.M.C.No.4973 of 2010 -: 2 :- allowed. Learned counsel has referred me to Annexure-5, report submitted by the investigating officer. There according to learned counsel it is stated that the vehicle is produced before the learned Magistrate. I have gone through Annexure-5 which is the report of the Investigating Officer in answer to the petition filed by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle. There, it is stated that the vehicle seized is kept in the premises of the police station as per order of the Magistrate. It is specifically stated that the vehicle shall not be released to the petitioner since the same is necessary for proceedings before the District Collector. The supreme court in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. (1990(3) SCC 549) has referred to the scope of Sec.6(E) of the Act and held that vehicle involved cannot be released till the prosecution ends in acquittal. 4. In the light of Sec.6(E) of the Act as explained by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above, request of petitioner to release the vehicle cannot be accepted. The District Collector shall take necessary steps in the matter as provided under law as early as possible. This criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-