IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 8 of 2011() ---------------------- CRL.MP.3071/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO.1178/2010 OF KASARAGOD POLICESTATION .................... PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: --------------- SHIBU K MATHEW, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.K.P.MATHEW, KAIPILLIL HOUSE ADIMALI,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.1178/2010 OF KASARAGODE POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.8 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed by the registered owner of taxi car bearing registration No.KL-6D, 5117 taken into custody by the Kasaragod police in connection with Crime No.1178 of 2010 for offence punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”) for allegedly transporting 23.850 kgs. of ganja. According to the petitioner the vehicle was taken on hire by certain persons who were travelling in the vehicle and the driver was not aware that the bags carried by the passengers contained ganja. Petitioner moved Crl.M.P.No.3071 of 2010 before learned Sessions Judge, Kasaragod for interim custody of the vehicle. That application was opposed by the respondent on various grounds including that investigation of the case is not completed and that release of the vehicle at that stage would affect further investigation. Learned Sessions Judge accepted that objection and dismissed the application. Hence this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel submitted that the only ground on which learned Sessions Judge refused interim custody of the vehicle is that the owner of the vehicle was not questioned. Learned counsel contends that the Supreme Court has directed release of the seized articles subject to appropriate precautions to be taken in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638). Crl.M.C.No.8 of 2011 2 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent. It is not as if the right of petitioner to get interim custody of the vehicle is foreclosed for ever by the learned Sessions Judge as is clear from the observation in paragraph 9 of the order under challenge that the release of the vehicle “at this juncture, ie. before completion of the investigation and questioning of the owner of the vehicle” would stultify the progress of the investigation. It follows that after investigation is completed it is open to the petitioner to move appropriate application before learned Sessions Judge. At any rate, petitioner is permitted to move fresh application before the learned Sessions Judge after investigation is completed. If any such application is filed, learned Sessions Judge shall consider that application and pass appropriate orders in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above and considering facts and circumstances of the case including objection if any of the Investigating Officer. Resultantly this petition is closed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to move fresh application before the learned Sessions Judge as above stated. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks