IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 857 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CMP.NO.420/2010 OF JFCM II, ERNAKULAM .... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER:ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL HAKKIM, S/O.KOCHUNNI, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJUMMAL, UDHYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.GIKKU JACOB RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CITY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COCHIN CITY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOCHI CITY TRAFFIC (WEST) POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY TRAFFIC (WEST) POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.857 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 31st March 2010 O R D E R Petitioner filed C.M.P.420/2010 for interim custody of vehicle No.KL-7.AU- 3042 seized in crime No.1515/2010 of City Traffic Police Station (West), Ernakulam. By Annexure-II order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that on executing kaichit by one Sudheer who is manager of the petitioner, vehicle was released to him and therefore, petition cannot be allowed either under Section 451 or 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure-II order is challenged in this petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle Crmc 857/10 2 is even now in the police station premises and was not released to the petitioner and he did not authorise Sudheer to get the vehicle released and in such circumstances, Annexure- II order is to be quashed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Sudheer claiming as the manager of the petitioner, executed a kaichit for release of the vehicle but he did not take custody of the vehicle from the police station and it is therefore, in the police station premises. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as vehicle is not necessary for the purpose of trial, there is no necessity to produce the vehicle before the learned Magistrate. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that offence alleged is only under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code. If that be Crmc 857/10 3 so, there may not any necessity for production of the vehicle for the purpose of trial. In such circumstances, Sub Inspector of Police, City Traffic Police Station, Ernakulam is directed to release bus No. KL-7.AU.3042 to the petitioner. Petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.