IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2568 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CRIME.6838/2009 of CITY TRAFFIC WEST POLICE STATION, KOCHI CITY .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ABDUL HAKIM, S/O. KOCHUNNI, CUCKOO VILLA, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJUMMAL, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED SRI.ABDUL LATIFF RESPONDENTS/STATE: 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY TRAFIC WEST POLICE STATION, KOCHI CITY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2568 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Stage Carriage Bus KL-07/AU 3042 was seized by City Traffic West Police for the offences under Sections 279 and 283 of Indian Penal Code and Section 66 read with Section 192, 119 and 179(1) of Motor Vehicles Act against the driver of the bus. Petitioner, who is the registered owner of the bus, filed M.P.No. 2004/2009 under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the vehicle. By order dated 30.7.2009, interim custody of the vehicle was granted to the petitioner on executing a bond for Rupees Five lakhs with two solvent sureties and also on production of original documents. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to modify the said condition. 2. As the order is not clear and what were the original documents directed to be produced, a report was called for from the learned Magistrate. As per the report, by original documents, it was meant, production CRMC 2568/09 2 of documents showing the ownership of the bus with the petitioner, like, registration certificate, permit, insurance, trip sheet, etc. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as the original registration certificate is not in the possession of the petitioner, he may be permitted to produce the copy of the registration certificate. As ownership of the bus with the petitioner is not disputed, learned Magistrate need not insist for production of the original registration certificate itself. Learned counsel then submitted that petitioner is prepared to produce all the other documents. Though learned counsel sought to modify quantum of the bond, I do not find any justification for modifying the said condition. Petition is disposed, making it clear that learned Magistrate not to insist for the production of original Registration Certificate of the vehicle. 1st October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv