IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1487 of 2011() ------------------------- CMP.13463/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SIM JOHNSON, S/O.JOHNSON, CHOCKOLA HOUSE, BIG BAZAR, VI+ ROAD, NEAR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K., SRI.LIJU. M.P. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARANTHARAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1487 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 01st day of June, 2011 O R D E R The Varantharppally Police, in connection with Crime No.677 of 2010 for offence punishable under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code seized a Car bearing No.KL-9/U-8380 which according to the petitioner belonged to him, he having purchased the same on 06.02.2007. Case is that the vehicle was used for commission of the offence. Petitioner sought interim custody of the vehicle and filed C.M.P. No. 13463 of 2010 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. That petition was opposed by the Investigating Officer on the ground that the same vehicle was used for commission of offence in Crime No.648 of 2010 of Chengamanad Police Station also. Learned Magistrate observed as per Annexure-D, order that the registered owner is using the vehicle for illegal activities and it is unsafe to release the vehicle. Annexure-D, order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel submitted that in Crime No.648 of 2010 of Chengamanad Police Station, the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner and the vehicle was accordingly CRL.M.C. No.1487 of 2011 -: 2 :- released as seen from Annexure-E, memo. It is contended that keeping the vehicle idle at the police station is of no use, the vehicle will get damaged and lost. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalalal Desai v. State of Gujrat (AIR 2003 SC 638) where guidelines regarding release of vehicle are stated. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that possibility of the vehicle being used for commission of offence again cannot be ruled out. 3. So far as as the alleged involvement of the vehicle in Crime No.648 of 2010 of Chengamanad Police Station is concerned, it is stated that the vehicle has already been released to the petitioner. Having regard to the circumstances stated before me I am inclined to think that it is not necessary to detain the vehicle further in the police station consequence of which is only to get it damaged and lost. In the circumstances vehicle can be released to the petitioner by way of interim custody subject to appropriate conditions. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-D, order dated December 12, 2010 on C.M.P. No.13463 of 2010 (Crime No.677 of 2010 of Varantharappally Police Station) is set aside and that application will stand allowed. Learned Magistrate is CRL.M.C. No.1487 of 2011 -: 3 :- directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the following conditions. (i) Petitioner shall use the vehicle only in accordance with the valid vehicle documents. (ii) Petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the learned Magistrate or other court in the same condition it is taken delivery. (iii) Petitioner shall not encumber or transfer ownership or possession of the vehicle during the period this order remains in force. (iv) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.3 lakhs with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate undertaking to comply with the above conditions. CRL.M.C. No.1487 of 2011 -: 4 :- (v) Before release of the vehicle petitioner shall produce before the learned Magistrate self attested colour photographs of the vehicle taken in different angles showing its registration number as well. Learned Magistrate shall get the photographs compared with the vehicle by the Chief Ministerial Officer and get a report from the Chief Ministerial Officer regarding that. Those colour photographs with the report of the Chief Ministerial Officer shall be forwarded to the court trying the case to be used as secondary evidence as stated in General Insurance Council v. State of A.P. (2010 [2] KLT SN 75 [Case No.76). (vi) Before taking delivery of the vehicle petitioner shall produce all the vehicular documents before the learned Magistrate and satisfy learned Magistrate that he is entitled to be in custody of the vehicle. CRL.M.C. No.1487 of 2011 -: 5 :- (vii) Petitioner shall also produce attested photocopies of the said documents before the learned Magistrate which learned Magistrate shall transmit to the court trying the case. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv