IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 889 of 2008() ----------------------------- MP.2600/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ----------------------------- HUSSAIN, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, OLLUKARA, KALATHODE,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------- 1. S.I. OF POLICE, THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P. No. 889 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated : 10-04-2008 ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner who claims to be the registered owner of an Ambassador Car bearing Reg. No. KL.7/D 4848 challenges Annexure IV order dated 4-3-2008 passed by the J.F.C.M.I, Thrissur dismissing the petitioners application filed as M.P. No. 2600 of 2008 under Sec. 457 Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the said vehicle which was seized in connection with an abkari case. The learned Magistrate was of the view that since the vehicle is not produced before court and has already been forwarded to the authorised officer for confiscation proceeding, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Sec. 457 Cr.P.C. I am fully in agreement with the view taken by the Magistrate. The remedy of the petitioner in such a situation is to move the authorised officer under Rule 4(2) of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the authorised officer this Revision is dismissed. V. Ramkumar, Judge. ani