IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22295 of 2008(D) -------------------------- CMP.1199/2008 of J.M.F.C.,NEDUMKANDOM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SAJI P.P., S/O. PEETHAMBARAN PULIKKAL HOUSE, THRIKKALATHOOR P.O. MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SANTHANPARA IDUKKI DIST. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT 4. TAHSILDAR, UDUMPANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 22295 of 2008 D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner faced indictment in a prosecution under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. He was arrayed as the second accused. He was not available and steps were taken under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. to secure the presence of the petitioner. Property of the petitioner was attached. The petitioner had entered appearance. He participated in the trial. He has already been found not guilty and acquitted. But the attachment of the property continued. 2. The petitioner, after disposal of the case, requested the learned Asst. Sessions Judge to vacate the attachment. That prayer was rejected as per Ext.P5 with a direction that the petitioner must approach the learned Magistrate, who effected the attachment. He approached the learned Magistrate, who, by the impugned order, copy of which which is Ext.P6, has rejected the petition summarily holding that the records are not available with the court. W.P.C.No. 22295 of 2008 2 3. I am afraid the approach of the learned Magistrate is totally incorrect and grossly erroneous. Records must have been called for and appropriate decision on merits must have been taken. In the nature of the grievance raised by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate could not certainly have refused the prayer on merits on the simple reason that the records are not available. The learned Magistrate must have taken necessary steps to get the records wherever they are. 4. I am satisfied that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the learned Magistrate deserves to be directed to dispose of CMP No.1199 of 2008 afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 5. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of CMP 1199 of 2008 afresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date on which a copy of this judgment is placed before the learned Magistrate. 6. Issue copy today itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm W.P.C.No. 22295 of 2008 3