IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2394 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.1770/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ RAKKI, S/O.SHERIF, CHARUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU NILAMEL MURI, NILAMEL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2394 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner claims to be the owner of a Maruti car bearing No.KL.24.2273. That vehicle was seized by the police in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations in that crime is that a lorry load of rubber sheets which was intended to be delivered elsewhere was diverted and the load of rubber sheets was clandestinely disposed of at various places. What is the connection of the petitioner's vehicle with the crime ? The only alleged connection is that the petitioner's vehicle had gone as pilot to the vehicle carrying rubber sheets and had thus facilitated the commission of crime. The vehicle was admittedly seized from the possession of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected the application on the ground that the registration certificate has not been produced by the petitioner. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the registration certificate is not in his possession now. He takes up a Crl.M.C. No.2394 of 2008 2 contention that it was available in the car when it was seized. Police denied that assertion. The petitioner has produced the registration particulars of the vehicle which shows that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. No other person has come forward with any claim. Admittedly the vehicle was seized from the possession of the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner was rejected in the wake of opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor on the short ground that he has not produced the registration certificate. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the registration certificate is not now traceable, the petitioner wants to take steps to get a duplicate registration certificate. But till then it is not necessary to allow the vehicle to remain in custody of the court/police and subjected to unnecessary damage, destruction and deterioration. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the vehicle may be directed to be released to the petitioner. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor persists in the opposition. But notwithstanding the opposition, I am satisfied that the vehicle can now be directed to be released to the petitioner notwithstanding his inability to produce the registration Crl.M.C. No.2394 of 2008 3 certificate. I take note of the crucial circumstance that the registration particulars reveal from the copy produced (duly attested by the office of the Sub Regional Transport) shows that the petitioner is the registered owner. I take note of the further circumstance that admittedly the vehicle was seized from the possession of the petitioner. It is also significant that no other claimant has so far come before this Court to claim release of the vehicle. I am satisfied that imbibing the sense of expedition demanded in the judgment in Sunder bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [A.I.R 2003 S.C 638], this Court can and must direct that the vehicle be released to the petitioner subject to appropriate terms and conditions. 6. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) The impugned order is set aside; iii) The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions: a) He shall execute a bond for the value of the vehicle to be ascertained by the learned Magistrate with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; Crl.M.C. No.2394 of 2008 4 b) In such bond, the petitioner shall undertake to produce the vehicle as and when directed by the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-