IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2281 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CMP.1570/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PERINTALMANNA. .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ THASNEEM, W/O.MUHAMMEDALI, MATHARI HOUSE, ANCHACHAVADI P.O., KALIKAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLATHUR THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2281 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, claiming to be the registered owner of Car KL-10/AA-7477, seized by the police in Crime No.92/2009 of Kolathur Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 376(g) of Indian Penal Code, filed C.M.P.No.1338/2009 under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the vehicle. Under Annexure-II order dated 11.6.2009, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that if the vehicle is released, collection of evidence and investigation of the case will be obstructed. Petitioner, thereafter, filed C.M.P.No.1570/2009 for the same relief. It was dismissed under Annexure-IV order dated 4.7.2009 on the ground that at this stage, it is not desirable to release the vehicle. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and learned Public Prosecutor, I find no justification for the CRMC 2281/09 2 Magistrate to deny interim custody of the vehicle, sought for by the petitioner, for the reason that investigation is not completed. If any material is to be collected from the vehicle, which would aid the investigation, there was sufficient time for the Investigating Officer to collect the materials. If any further collection of evidence is necessary, it could also be collected. In such circumstances, dismissal of the petition for interim custody, on the ground that it is not desirable to release the vehicle at this stage is unsustainable. Petition is allowed. Annexure-IV order is quashed. Magistrate is directed to consider the application afresh. If the petitioner is the registered owner, he is entitled to get release of the vehicle on appropriate conditions to be imposed by the Magistrate, if released. 30th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv