IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 34 of 2008() ----------------------- CRMP.8090/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SANAL LAL, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O SASIDHARAN, SARITHA BHAVAN, NADUKUNNU P.O., PATHANAMPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SHAJI, S/O SALIM, CHARUVILA VEEDU, KUNDAYAM MURI, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. MADHUSOODANAN PILLAI, S/O THANKAPPAN PILLAI, CHERIYAKAVANADU, KAMUKUMCHERRY MURI, PADAVOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.34 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner who claims to be the owner of a mini lorry bearing registration No. KL-2 7754 involved in crime No. 289/2007 of Pathanapuram Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 279, 447, 427 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 r/w Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957, challenges Annexure C order dated 11.10.2007 in Crl.M.P.No. 8090/2007 as per which the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Punalur rejected the application for interim custody filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The reason given by the learned Magistrate for rejecting the application for interim custody was that the petitioner did not produce convincing evidence to show that he is a transferee of the vehicle from the registered owner. The RC owner of the lorry is one Madhusoodhanan Pillai who is alleged to have sold the lorry to one Shafy, the 3rd respondent as per an agreement dated 08.01.2006 and the said Shafy is said to have transferred the CRL.M.C.NO. 34/2008 : 2: vehicle to the petitioner on 10.01.2007 as per another sale agreement. Both Madhusoodhanan Pillai and Shafy are reported to be abroad. Even though the Investigating Officer was directed by this Court to contact the registered owner and the transferor of the petitioner to ascertain whether the transfers set up by the petitioner are true and genuine, no attempt in that direction has been made except to contact the relatives in Kerala of the said Madhusoodhanan Pillai and Shafy. Under these circumstances, in the light of the directions of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002 (10) SCC 282) , I am inclined to grant interim custody of the lorry to the petitioner. Accordingly, the lorry in question shall be handed over on interim custody to the petitioner on his depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) and on his executing a bond for Rs.5 lakhs with two solvent sureties each for the like amount without insisting on the production of the solvency certificate and subject to following conditions:- 1. The petitioner shall not allow the lorry to be used for any illicit purpose. CRL.M.C.NO. 34/2008 : 3: 2. The petitioner shall not transfer the lorry wholly or in part to any other person. 3. The petitioner shall produce the lorry in the same condition in which it is released to him as and when required by the Magistrate. 4. The release of the lorry on interim custody shall be subject to confiscation proceedings, if any, initiated in respect of the lorry. This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.M.C.NO. 34/2008 : 4: