IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1068 of 2011() ------------------------- CRMP.153/2011 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S)/CLAIM PETITIONER :- ------------------------------------------------------- ANIL.K.MATHEW, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, KUTHINAPPURATH(H), KODANADU P.O, KODANADU KARA, KUNNTHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S) :- ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA,THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.1068 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 31st day of March 2011 O R D E R Claim petitioner in S.C.No.496 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam is the petitioner before me challenging Annexure-A4, order directing petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.1,95,000/- for release of the vehicle, in modification of an earlier order for bank guarantee for Rs.4,25,000/-. Petitioner's vehicle is alleged to be involved in Crime No.1231 of 2010 of Hill Palace Police Station for offence punishable under Sec.20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985, for allegedly carrying ganja. Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1891 of 2010 before learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam for interim custody of the vehicle under Sec.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Learned Sessions Judge on 17.7.2010 ordered interim custody of the vehicle to be given to the petitioner subject to conditions including that petitioner produced bank guarantee for Crl.M.C. No.1068 of 2011 -: 2 :- Rs.4,25,000/-. Petitioner challenged that order in this Court in Crl.M.C.No.3326 of 2010 and this Court by order dated 13.8.2010 directed that learned Sessions Judge shall modify the amount of bank guarantee based on valuation of the vehicle to be made through the proper authority. Accordingly, the Assistant Motor Vehicle's Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Ernakulam valued the said vehicle and submitted a report on 28.10.2010 valuing the vehicle at Rs.1,95,000/-. In the mean time, order of this Court was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition directing petitioner to approach the Sessions Court for modification. Thereafter learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the petition and passed the impugned order modifying the bank guarantee as for Rs.1,95,000/-. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is not involved in the case. Petitioner had given the vehicle on rent as per Annexure-A6 to one Kiran Chand. 2. It is not necessary to go into the question whether petitioner has any involvement in the alleged transportation of ganja in the vehicle involved. Question to be considered is Crl.M.C. No.1068 of 2011 -: 3 :- whether learned Addl. Sessions Judge is correct in directing petitioner to produce bank guarantee for Rs.1,95,000/-. I must bear in mind the order passed in Crl.M.C.No.3326 of 2010 directing that the bank guarantee shall be for the value of vehicle as may be assessed by the appropriate authority. The Supreme Court did not interfere with that order. The Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector has valued the vehicle at Rs.1,95,000/-. In the above circumstance, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt