IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2963 of 2009 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/08/2009 IN Crl.M.P.NO. 2320/09 IN SC.NO.102/2009 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS 1 & 2: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. JAYASANKAR, S/O. KANTHASWAMI, AGED 34 YEARS, ELACHIPALAYAM, TIRUCHAMCODE, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU. 2. SIVAMANI, S/O. VARADA NADAR, AGED 45 YEARS, RANGASWAMI PILLAI, STREET, TIRUCHAMCODE, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUT OR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, CHITTUR IN CR. NP.10/2006. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2963 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.102/2009 on the file of Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Palakkad. At the defence stage, petitioners filed C.M.P.No.2320/2009 for a direction to respondent to produce the vehicle, which was confiscated and sold, so as to examine the exact Chassis number and Engine number of the vehicle. Under Annexure-2 order, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure to quash Annexure-2 order and to direct the respondent to produce the vehicle. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that PW1, in cross-examination, admitted that the Chassis number and Engine number of the vehicle were shown in the mahazar, after physical examination of the vehicle and in the light of the CRMC 2963/09 2 evidence, the actual numbers seen in the vehicle are to be examined by the court and therefore, learned Sessions Judge should have allowed the petition. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Nagappa v. Muralidhar (2008 (3) KLT 158) and argued that mode of proof to establish the defence case cannot be dictated by the complainant or by the court and is left to the accused and in such circumstances, when the actual numbers could be established only by production of the vehicle, the petition should have been allowed. I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-2 order. Being an interlocutory order, it is to be challenged along with the final order. Petition is dismissed. If the Sessions Judge, on hearing the case, finds that personal examination of the vehicle is necessary, this order will not stand in the way. Petitioners are also entitled to challenge the order along with the final order, if it goes against them. 18th September, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv