IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 215 of 2010 -------------------------------- (C.M.P. NO.10104/09 IN O.R. 6/07 OF THE JFCM COURT, CHALAKUDY) ................. PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- RAJESH, S/O. VENUGOPALAN, PULLARKKATTU HOUSE, PARIYARAM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN, MR.K.S. RAJESH. RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PARIYARAM FOREST RANGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.215 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Mahindra Diesel Jeep KLG-8727 was seized in O.R.No.6/2007 of Pariyaram Range Office and produced before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakudy. Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No. 11081/2007 under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure to release the vehicle. Learned Magistrate directed release of the vehicle on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. Petitioner challenged that order before Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.R.P.No.23/2008 contending that quantum of the bond is excessive. By Annexure-B order, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-B order and to reduce the bond amount to Rs.12,000/-, which is the amount fixed by the Divisional Forest CRMC 215/10 2 Officer under Annexure-C order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that under Annexure-C order, Divisional Forest Officer directed the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.12,000/- as the value of the vehicle. Even though the vehicle was released to the petitioner, for his inability to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/-, the vehicle could not so far be released and when the Divisional Forest Officer himself assessed the value of the vehicle at Rs.12,000/-, the bond amount is to be reduced to Rs.12,000/-. 4. Annexure-C order does not show on what basis Divisional Forest Officer fixed Rs.12,000/- as the amount necessary for executing a bond to release the vehicle. Even if a bond was executed, as required under Annexure-C order, Divisional Forest Officer could not have released the vehicle, as the CRMC 215/10 3 vehicle has already been produced before the court and release of the vehicle was directed by the Magistrate on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-. Annexure-C order also does not show that, after its production before the Magistrate, any valuation of the vehicle was taken and based on that valuation, the value was fixed at Rs.12,000/-. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that based on Annexure-C order, quantum of the bond cannot be reduced as sought for. Petition is dismissed. 19th February, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv