IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3923 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CC.NO. 780/2010 OF JUDICIALMAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ VARGHESE T.M., S/O.T.A.MANUAL, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, LISSE HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAJI K.FASEELA S/O KUNTHALAM, AMABANAPPILLY HOUSE, NEDUNGANDAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY C.I. OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.3923 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Common passed by the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam on C.M.P. No.1698 and 2123 of 2010 in C.C. No.780 of 2010 is under challenge. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. In connection with a case involving offence punishable under Sections 406, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code a vehicle was seized by the police and produced before the learned Magistrate. Petitioner and the first respondent filed C.M.P. No.195 and 206 of 2009 respectively claiming interim custody of the vehicle and the learned Magistrate by order dated 05.02.2009 allowed petition filed by the first respondent. First respondent was permitted to take custody of the vehicle subject to certain conditions. Later petitioner filed CMP No.1901 of 2009 claiming that first respondent has not taken custody of the vehicle and hence it may be released to him. First respondent filed CMP No.1916 of 2009 to modify condition No.2 in the order dated 05.02.2009. Learned Magistrate dismissed both the petitions CRL.M.C. No.3923 of 2010 -: 2 :- observing that there is no power for reconsideration or review of the order dated 05.02.2010. Thereafter petitioner and respondent filed Crl. M.C.Nos.3830 and 3833 of 2009 in this Court challenging the original order. This Court disposed of the Criminal Miscellaneous Cases on 14.12.2009 directing that interim custody of the vehicle be given to the first respondent subject to conditions and that if the conditions are not complied custody of the vehicle will be given to the petitioner. Later petitioner filed CMP No.1698 of 2010 for interim custody of the vehicle contending that police submitted final report in the case and that report of the Forensic Science Laboratory reveals that Form Nos.20 and 30 (allegedly executed by petitioner) are the result of forgery. He also expressed about his inability to comply with condition for production of Bank Guarantee. First respondent filed CMP No.2123 of 2010 seeking to pass fresh order for interim custody and give custody of the vehicle to him. Learned Magistrate dismissed CMP Nos.1698 and 2123 of 2010 observing that no fresh order as prayed for by the first respondent could be passed (in view of the order of this Court dated 14.12.2009 on Crl. M.C. Nos.3830 and 3833 of 2009) and that there is no question of passing a fresh order in favour of petitioner as prayed for in view of the aforesaid order of this Court. Accordingly both the petitions CRL.M.C. No.3923 of 2010 -: 3 :- were dismissed. Dismissal of CMP No.1698 of 2010 is under challenge in this proceeding. Learned counsel contended that vehicle is old, can fetch only about `80,000/- and that the direction to produce Bank Guarantee for `2,00,000/- is unsustainable. 3. There is a concluded order passed by this Court as to the custody of the vehicle. This Court also directed that if first respondent does not comply with the direction the vehicle shall be given to the petitioner. That order stands. In such a situation learned Magistrate could not have passed a fresh order in the matter of custody of vehicle. According to the learned counsel there are changed circumstances. But based on changed circumstances orders cannot be passed every now and then. Parties are to comply with the order passed on 14.12.2009 on Crl. M.C. Nos.3830 and 3833 of 2009. There is no reason to interfere with the common order. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv