IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1376 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRRP.2/2009 of 1ST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CRMP.12186/2008 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VIPIN SAGAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.EZHUVANAPARAMBIL VIDYASAGAR, EZHUVANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KIZHUPPILLIKKARA AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF ANIL KUMAR, S/O.CHAKKI SANKU,THAMBANKADAVU DESOM, THALIKULAM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.M.MADHUBEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, (CRIME NO.721/2008 OF VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION) HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1376 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of May, 2011 ORDER Petitioner, claiming to be the power of attorney of the registered owner of a car bearing number KL-46/A 6863 seized by the Vadanappally police in connection with Crime No.721 of 2008 of that station, moved C.M.P.No.12186 of 2008 before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad for interim custody of the said vehicle. Petition was rejected by the learned Magistrate upholding objection of the Investigating Officer that if the car is given custody to the petitioner it will be destroyed and evidence will be lost. Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged it before the First Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.R.P.No.2 of 2009. In this proceeding petitioner challenges the impugned order and prays for release of the vehicle to him. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel submitted that there is no necessity to detain the vehicle which will only result in it getting damaged and lost. Learned Public Prosecutor has highlighted the apprehension of the Investigating Officer as stated before the learned Magistrate. Crl.M.C.No.1376 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. Case is that on 01.10.2008 de facto complainant while talking to one Dhanesh, 5 person came in the car (allegedly) involved in this proceeding and attacked the said Dhanesh with swords. The car was seized by the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation. According to the petitioner the car was given on rent-a-car basis to CW28. It is stated that the third accused got the car from CW28. 3. The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SCC 638) has given guidelines as to custody of material objects involved in cases. Having regard to the circumstances stated before me, I do not think it necessary to detain the vehicle till trial of the case is over which will only result in the vehicle getting damaged and lost. Having regard to these circumstances I am inclined to give interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner but subject to conditions. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed in the following lines: (i) Impugned orders on C.M.P.No.12186 of 2008 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad and Crl.R.P.No.2 of 2009 of the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur are set aside, C.M.P.No.12186 of 2008 will stand allowed and interim custody of the Crl.M.C.No.1376 of 2011 -: 3 :- vehicle is given to the petitioner subject to conditions: (a) Petitioner shall produce the vehicular documents before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad and satisfy the learned Magistrate that his principal is the registered owner of the said car. (b) Learned Magistrate shall ensure that power of attorney executed in favour of petitioner is produced in Court and it authorises petitioner to take custody of the vehicle. (c) Petitioner shall execute bond for value of the car (which shall be got assessed by the learned Magistrate through the appropriate authority) with two sureties for the like sum each undertaking as follows:- (i) Petitioner shall produce the car as and when directed by the learned Magistrate or any other Court to do so. (ii) Petitioner shall not cause any damage to the car and shall produce the same in the same condition it is taken delivery, before the learned Magistrate or other Court. (iii) Petitioner shall not transfer possession or ownership of the vehicle or encumber the same during the period this Crl.M.C.No.1376 of 2011 -: 4 :- order remains in force. (iv) Petitioner shall use the vehicle only in accordance with proper registration certificate and other vehicular documents regulating its use as per the law in force. (d) Petitioner shall before taking release of the vehicle, produce its colour photographs (attested by him as true photographs) from different angles showing the vehicle as well as its registration number, before the learned Magistrate. (e) Petitioner shall produce attested photocopies of vehicular documents and on such production learned Magistrate after comparison of the same with the originals return the originals to the petitioner and the photocopies shall be retained by the learned Magistrate. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-