IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2469 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CMP.1000/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER/ PETITIONER -------------------------------------- MRS.RETAN DEVI JAIN W/O.MADAN LAL JAIN,PROPRIETOR,M/S.RETAN DEVI JAIN, NO.12, ERULAPPAN STREET,IST FLOOR,SOWCARPET,CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.JOY, PROPRIETOR,KEERTHI CAR MARKETING ,SEED FARM JUNCTION,KADAKKAL,KOLLAM DISTRICT. (WRONGLY SHOWN AS M.JOY, PROPRIETOR, KEERTHI CAR MARKETING, SEED FARM JUNCTION, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.) BY ADV. MR.M.R.RAJESH RESPONDENT/STATE-COUNTER PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2469 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, being a financier of DCM Toyota Mini Lorry KL-10/A 1765, which was seized and produced before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Attingal in Crime No.343/2008 of Kilimanoor Police Station, on the allegation that lorry was used for transporting river sand, filed C.M.P.No.1000/2009 under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the vehicle. Petition was filed through the power of attorney holder. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application. It was challenged before this Court in Crl.M.C.No.1380/2009. Under Annexure-C order, the order of the Magistrate was set aside and case was remanded for fresh disposal after issuing notice to the registered owner. Annexure-D order was passed thereafter. By Annexure-D order, petitioner was granted interim custody of the CRMC 2469/09 2 vehicle on executing a bond for Rupees Five lakhs with two solvent sureties each for the like sum and also on deposit of Rs.25,000/-. There was yet another condition that one of the sureties shall produce the original title deed of his property. Annexure-D order shows that notice was issued to the registered owner by the Magistrate and in spite of service of notice, he did not appear or raise any objection for the granting interim custody sought for by the petitioner. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the conditions in Annexure-D order, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000/- as well as the direction to produce the title deed of one of the sureties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the registered owner did not appear after service of CRMC 2469/09 3 notice. In such circumstances, petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle. Learned Public Prosecutor has no case that confiscation proceedings were initiated in respect of the vehicle. In such circumstances, I find no reason to justify the condition to deposit Rs.25,000/- or the direction to produce the title deed of one of the sureties. Petition is allowed. Condition No.1, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000/- to that extent and Condition No.4, direction to produce the original title deed of the immovable property of one of the sureties, in Annexure-D order are quashed. 5th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv