IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 CRL.A.No. 621 of 2011() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC.41/2011 IN CRMP.3398/2001 of SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASE IN ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S):/ CLAIM PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------- SUHARA, W/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS, OTTATHENGUNKAL HOUSE, 12/144, VANIYAKKAD, MANNAM P.O., N.PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.P.K.ABDURAHIMAN (POOLACKAL KARATCHAL) SRI.T.R.TARIN RESPONDENT(S):/ COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE, TRICHUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. *ADDL.R4. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY NEWDELHI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.AJAY, SPL. P.P FOR NIA FOR R4 * ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.7.2011 IN CRL.MA.NO.6438/2011 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb V.RAMKUMAR & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ---------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.621 OF 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The appellant's application [CMP No.3398 of 2010] filed before the Special Court, where S.C.No.41 of 2011 is pending, has been dismissed as per the impugned common order dated 10.03.2011. She claims to be the registered owner of Maruthi Alto car bearing registration No.KL 8/AB 5597 allegedly involved in Crime No.704 of 2010 of Muvattupuzha Police Station. 2. We heard both sides. The petitioner is admittedly not an accused in the above case and even assuming that the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated, there is no justification for exposing the vehicle to the ambient sun and rain, since it is lying in the compound of the Muvattupuzha Police Station. The vehicle, apart from becoming an eye-sore to the police will get permanently damaged with no use to anybody. Hence in the light of Sundar Bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002 (10) SCC 283) we are of the view that the vehicle should be released on interim custody to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the aforesaid Maruthi Alto car shall be Crl.Appeal No.621 OF 2011 2 released to the petitioner on interim custody, on the petitioner depositing a sum equivalent to the present market value to be assessed by the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam and on her depositing the said amount and also on her executing a bond for the said amount without any sureties to the satisfaction of the Special Court and subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall keep the vehicle in proper running condition without transferring the same wholly or in part to any person. (ii) The petitioner shall not part with her possession or ownership of the vehicle. (iii) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the Special Court as and when called upon to do so. (iv) In the event of any order for confiscation, the vehicle shall be produced before the Court or such authority to give effect to such order. The appeal is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE dmb