IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4605 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 404/08 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION CMP.9687/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------ ABDUL SALEEM, S/O.IBRAHIM KUNJU, VILLUR VILLA, MULAIKONAM WARD, KOTTARAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4605 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner's vehicle was allegedly involved in offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. The vehicle was seized. It has not been released to the petitioner. The fact of seizure was reported to the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied before the learned Magistrate for release of the vehicle. The application was opposed. The learned Magistrate accordingly dismissed the application for release of the vehicle to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the registered owner of the vehicle. He is entitled to possession of the vehicle. Considering the nature of the offences alleged, the petitioner's vehicle does not deserve to be detained and retained in the custody of the police or the court. In these circumstances the impugned order may be set aside and the vehicle may be ordered to be released to the petitioner, it is prayed. Crl.M.C.No. 4605 of 2008 2 3. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who opposes the application. The learned Prosecutor submits that so far the original documents have not been made available to the police for verification. The details of the driver of the vehicle has not been communicated to the Investigating Officer by the petitioner, who claims to be the owner of the vehicle. In these circumstances the vehicle may not be directed to be released. Appropriate safeguards will have to be insisted. It will have to be ensured that the petitioner is really the owner entitled for possession of the vehicle and that the documents in respect of the vehicle are genuine and true. The attempt of the petitioner is to secure possession of the vehicle without the obligation to produce all the necessary documents. Production of the documents, the police feels, might expose the non-genuineness of such documents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already furnished to the police relevant details about the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time and has also produced copies of all documents to show that he is the owner entitled to possession of the same. This assertion is stoutly contested by the learned Prosecutor. Crl.M.C.No. 4605 of 2008 3 5. I am dissatisfied to note that the vehicle, which is involved only in the commission of offences under Section 279 and 338 I.P.C., Is being retained in the custody of the court unnecessarily for a long period of time. The seizure was effected on 18.7.2008. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the learned Magistrate can be directed to consider the matter afresh and issue appropriate direction for release of the vehicle. 6. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. b) The impugned order is set aside. c) The learned Magistrate is directed to consider C.M.P.9687 of 2008 afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 7 days from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before the learned Magistrate. d) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate along with copy of this order on 15.12.2008. He shall also produce all relevant original documents to show that he is the owner entitled to possession of the vehicle. He shall also produce before the learned Crl.M.C.No. 4605 of 2008 4 Magistrate a signed copy of the reply allegedly sent to the police by him. Another signed copy shall be made available before the Magistrate to be handed over to the police. e) The learned Magistrate shall consider all relevant circumstances and pass appropriate orders after giving the police an opportunity to raise their contentions/objections. 7. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm