IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3843 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CMP.9636/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA CRIME NO.949/2010 OF IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- LIJO, S/O.JOY KALLAMPARAMBIL, ANATHALI DESOM PULLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR, SRI.N.AJITH. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE IRINJALAKKUDA-680 121. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, ALONG WITH CRMC NO.3844 OF 2010 AND CRMC NO.3845 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------- Crl.M.C Nos.3843, 3844 & 3845 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 11th October, 2010 O R D E R Three autorickshaws were seized and produced before Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Irinjalakuda in Crime No.949/2010 as it was found that without the permission of the Regional Transport Officer and violating the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, modifications were made to the Autorickshaws and they were being plied using L.P.G Cylinders. Petitioners claiming to be the registered owners filed C.M.P. Nos.9373/2010, 9635/2010 and 9636/2010 under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody and by Annexure -D order dated 18.8.2010, learned Magistrate dismissed all the petitions. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure to quash Annexure D order and to grant interim custody. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that there is only violation of the Crl.M.C Nos.3843, 3844 & 3845 of 2010 2 statutory conditions and the income being derived by plying the autorickshaws is the sole income for the livelihood of the petitioners and their family and in such circumstances, learned Magistrate should have granted interim custody on sufficient conditions. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that petitioners in violation of the relevant rules and with least regard to the public safety, used autorickshaws by making alterations, using L.P.G Cylinders and if the vehicles are released, petitioners would again use the same and in such circumstances, interim custody cannot be granted. 5. Annexure -D order does not show that the learned Magistrate has considered the question whether petitioners are the registered owners of the vehicles. Petitions were dismissed for the reason that at this stage vehicles cannot be released. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has no case that for the purpose of investigation of the case, the vehicles are necessary. In such circumstances, on sufficient conditions, including the condition not use the vehicles with L.P.G Crl.M.C Nos.3843, 3844 & 3845 of 2010 3 Cylinders, the vehicles could be released to the petitioners if they are the registered owners. Annexure-D order is quashed. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Irinjalakuda is directed to re-consider C.M.P Nos.9373/2010, 9635/2010 and 9636/2010 and consider the question whether petitioners are registered owners and if they are the registered owners, grant interim custody on sufficient conditions in the light of the observations made above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE ma