IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2880 of 2008() ------------------------- MP.4362/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI CRIME NO.658/08 OF FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ------------ ANAS P.A., S/O ANWAR HUSSAIN, RESIDING AT 4/72, CHERALAI, KOCHI -2. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.A.SHERLY SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OFKERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, IN CRIME NO. 658/08 OF FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2880 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the owner of a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL 435934. That vehicle was involved in an offence punishable under Sections 183 and 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act by another individual (not the petitioner). The vehicle was seized by the police and was produced before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. His application was dismissed by the impugned order on the short ground that the registration certificate shows that he is the owner of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 43-5934, the vehicle seized bore a registration number displayed on it that its number was KL 43-5934. Because of that error, the learned Magistrate did not direct release of the vehicle to the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle really is a vehicle bearing Reg.No.43-5934. The petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle. The registration certificate relates to vehicle bearing Registration No.43-5934. Crl.M.C. No.2880 of 2008 2 Unfortunately there was an error in the number displayed on the motor cycle - instead of 435934, it was shown as 435943. That error is of no consequence at all. The police have not so far raised any allegations against the petitioner that there was wilful misrepresentation of the number on the vehicle. In these circumstances it is not necessary to insist on the continued retention of the vehicle in the custody of the court or the police. The vehicle may be released to the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms that as per the registration certificate, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle seized is bearing Reg.No.435934 though the number shown on the vehicle is 435943. The learned Public Prosecutor concedes that no crime has been registered or altered to raise the allegation that there was wilful and deliberate misrepresentation of the number of the vehicle on the vehicle. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that the vehicle can now be directed to be released to the petitioner without any special conditions. Crl.M.C. No.2880 of 2008 3 5. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed; b) The impugned order is set aside; c) The vehicle bearing Reg.No.435934 shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions: i) The petitioner shall produce necessary documents before the learned Magistrate to show that he is the owner entitled to possession of the vehicle; ii) He shall execute a bond for an amount equal to the value of the vehicle, to be assessed by the learned Magistrate, without any sureties. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-