IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1917 of 2010() ------------------------------ CMP.2393/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JOHN K.G., S/O.GEORGE, KUNJANETHU, PUNTHALA THAZHAM MURI, VENMONY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYARAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENMONY, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.VENUGOPAL M.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1917 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred, challenging the order dated 8.4.2010 in C.M.P.No.2393/10 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur, in Crime No.I/10 of Venmony Police Station, which was filed u/s.451 of Cr.P.C., for the release and interim custody of a vehicle-motor cycle, bearing Regn.No.KL- 4/R 810. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that, the vehicle in question was taken into custody on 1.1.2010, connected with Crime No.I/10 of Venmony Police Station and the investigation is practically over and no purpose will be served by keeping the vehicle idle in the police station. It is the submission of the learned counsel that, the revision petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he is no way responsible for the allegation contained in the above crime. In support of the arguments of the learned counsel, he invited my Crl. R.P.No.1917 of 2010 2 attention to a decision of the apex court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat [2003(2) KLT 1089 (SC)]. 3. Stoutly opposing the relief sought in the revision petition, the learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted that the vehicle in question involved in one more crime ie., Crime No.324/09 of the very same police station and the said crime taken place at about 7.30 p.m. on 31.12.2009, in which substantial offences alleged are u/s.353, 324, 308 of IPC and in that cases, more than 5 accused are involved and hence S.149 is also incorporated. It is the further submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that, three named accused as well as four unnamed accused are involved in the above crime and out of the three named accused, A2 was the person who used the vehicle, for committing the offence in Crime No.324/09. It is also submitted that the 1st accused, whose name is already found a place in FIR in that crime, was arrested at about 12.15 a.m. on 1.1.2010 and continuum to his arrest, the accused in the present crime came to the police station for releasing A1 and for that Crl. R.P.No.1917 of 2010 3 purpose also the vehicle in question is used. In Crime no.324/09, A2 has already been arrested and the present revision petitioner is the father of A2. The learned Magistrate after considering the seriousness of the two crimes and the involvement of the vehicle in the crime, declined prayer u/s.451 of Cr.P.C. 4. I have carefully perused the order of the learned Magistrate, which is impugned in the revision petition and also considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Admittedly the revision petitioner is not in station and he is employed in Mumbai and according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the vehicle was used in the crime without his knowledge and consent. Therefore, he is entitled to get released the vehicle atleast as an interim arrangement. 6. It is pertinent to note that, initially the vehicle was involved in a serious crime including s.308 of IPC and for the commission of the above offence, the vehicle in question was used by A2 but immediately after the occurrence, the police Crl. R.P.No.1917 of 2010 4 could not seize the vehicle connected with Crime No.324/09. But the police arrested A1 on the early morning of 1.1.2010. But certain other accused who are now absconding came into the police station for forcibly releasing A1, who is arrested in Crime No.324/09 and hence police registered Crime No.1/10 for the offence punishable u/s.143, 147, 148, 353, 225(b) r/w.149 of IPC. As a part of investigation in Crime No.1/10 the police seized the vehicle. Considering the seriousness of the offences involved in the two crimes and the fact that the vehicle used for the commission of those offences, I find no illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate. 7. From the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor it can be seen that the accused in Crime No.1/10, in which case the vehicle seized, are absconding still now. The gravity of the offence also cannot be ignored. The allegation in the latest crime is that the absconding accused came in the above vehicle, for the purpose of forcibly releasing a legally arrested accused from the police station, which shows that the Crl. R.P.No.1917 of 2010 5 accused are persons prepared to go any extent and to take laws into their hands. If that be so, the release of the vehicle at this stage will certainly adversely affect the investigation. The decision relied on by the learned counsel and the guideline issued therein especially guideline No.3 is not applicable in the present case because even if the vehicle is released in favour of the revision petitioner herein, there will not be any guarantee that this vehicle will not be used and involved in future crime because the revision petitioner is not in station and the revision petitioner's son is already involved in another crime. In the result, this revision petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/