IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 4170 of 2009(C) -------------------------------------- (CMP.NO.3169/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM, CRIME NO.65/2009 OF ERNAKULAM EXCISE RANGE) .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- CANA TRADERS, 16/1152 B, IST FLOOR, BABY JEWELLERY BUILDING, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-682 005, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER VARKEY GEORGE. BY ADVS. MR.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, MR.THOMAS T.VARGHESE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE C.I. OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (BOND), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 009. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR, R2 BY MR.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,S.C. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C No.4170 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER This is a petition filed under Section under 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have Annexure A7 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Ernakulam set aside and for appropriate orders. 2. Petitioner had filed C.M.P No.3169 of 2009 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Ernakulam. That was filed under Section 451/457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking interim custody of the foreign made foreign liquor seized in Crime No.65/2009 of the Excise Range, Ernakulam. The petitioner narrates in detail his right to possess the article. There is no dispute regarding the article seized nor about its quality. The petitioner points out that he had produced several documents before the court below in support of his petition but those documents were not considered. It is pointed out that the court below has not taken note of any of the documents produced in support of the custody of the article. 3. Second respondent supports the petition, but the state opposes the same. The court below was not justified in observing that there were no documents produced in support of Crl.M.C No.4170 OF 2009 Page numbers the claim. It is not correct that the documents have been produced. It is felt that reconsideration of the trial by the trial court is necessary. Petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law and after hearing all the parties within two weeks from the date of this order. 4. Send a copy of the order to the court below forthwith. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE