IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1089 of 2009(A) ------------------------------ CMP.276/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------- M.M.MOIDEEN, S/O.THENU, ATHIMANNIL HOUSE, KIDANGAZHI.PO, KARUVAMBRAM, NARUKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,THIROORANGADI POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 1089 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009. O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure-C order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I Parappanangadi relating to the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL- 10AA/7272. The petitioner herein claims to be the power of attorney holder of the registered owner of a Maruthi car which is seized by the Police. It is also averred that the documents of the car and the key were seized by the Police. The car was being used by the Power of Attorney Holder to drive and at the time of seizure the car was given by the power of attorney holder to the accused to use the same. The accused in the case is involved in a major case at Basavannagudi Police Station, Bangalore like theft and it is a subject matter before the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The Court below held that the petitioner has not produced any documents to prove the ownership of the car and there are suspicious circumstances. Crl.M.C. 1089 OF 2009 -:2:- On the contra the Prosecutor would strongly contend that the car has been purchased with the stolen money by the accused and therefore the question of releasing the vehicle to the petitioner does not arise. In a petition u/s 451 Cr.P.C. the Court is bound to consider the documents regarding the ownership including possession and thereafter take a decision. If really the vehicle stands registered in the name of the present petitioner with all valid documents then one may have to state that whether the case pleaded by him on giving the car to the accused for usage is correct or not. If there are no convincing documents to satisfy the conscience of the Court regarding the ownership and possession of the vehicle, then necessarily the question of release of the vehicle may not arise at all. Now, the petitioner has got a case that the documents were inside the car and alleges that the police has seized the vehicle with the documents and therefore he was not in a position to produce documents. Even if the documents are not available at that stage or is missing, there would be documents before the competent Crl.M.C. 1089 OF 2009 -:3:- authorities to establish the ownership of the vehicle as well other factors. So I feel an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to prove that he is the owner in possession of the property who is entitled to release of the vehicle. Of course the rival contention raised by the prosecution also can be taken into consideration from the materials available and let a fresh decision be taken in accordance with law by the learned Magistrate. Therefore the order under challenge, that is, CMP 276/09 of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Parappanangadi is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to reconsider the same in the light of the discussions made in the previous part of this judgment. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-