IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST APRIL 2009 / 1ST VAISAKHA 1931 CRL.MC.NO. 1380 OF 2009() -------------------------------------- CMP.1000/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.JOY, PROPRIETOR, KEERTHI CAR MARKETING SEED FARM JUNCTION, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF MRS.RETAN DEVI JAIN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. RETAN DAVI JAIN, NO.12, ERULAPPAN STREET, 1ST FLOOR, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT. ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. M.C. NO.1380 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of April, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor who took notice for the respondent. Notice to the registered owner is dispensed with since the impugned order was passed without issuing notice to him. 2. Petitioner as financier of the vehicle claimed its interim custody under Section 451 of the Corde of Criminal Procedure. Impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate had ordered notice to the registered owner on that application but even before the notice was returned petitioner got the application advanced and pressed for hearing of the application. Learned Magistrate observed that he was constrained to pass an order in the circumstance, that the petitioner has not even produced the authenticated copy of the Power of Attorney and dismissed the application. 3. Whatever may be the claim made by the petitioner, behind the back of the registered owner he cannot get an order for release of the vehicle. Therefore, learned Magistrate is justified in refusing to pass order in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter may be remitted to the court CRL. M.C. No.1380 of 2009 -: 2 :- below so that notice of the application could be given to the registered owner. He also submits that petitioner is prepared to produce the original or properly authenticated copy of the Power of Attorney in the court below. 4. Since learned Magistrate has not adjudicated upon the claim of petitioner on merits, I am inclined to accept the request though the petitioner himself has invited the impugned order. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the court below. Learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of C.M.P. No.1000 of 2009 afresh after issuing notice to the registered owner. Petitioner shall produce in the court below the original or properly authenticated copy of the Power of Attorney he is relying upon. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv CRL. M.C. No.1380 of 2009 -: 3 :- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== S.A. NO. OF 2001 =================== J U D G M E N T APRIL, 2009