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. 413 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------ [CRL.MP.NO.2874/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA] .................... PETITIONER/CLAIM PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ V.M.KASIM, AGED 65, ENJIPARAMBIL HOUSE, UNICHIRA, BMC P.O., THRIKKAKKARA. BY ADVS. MR.C.D.JOHNY, MR.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 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.413 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Car KL-7/BB 4942 was seized in Crime No. 1007/2009 of Kalamassery Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 22(a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Petitioner got the vehicle released under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as the registered owner, on conditions. Petitioner was directed to execute a bond and also to furnish the title deed in respect of the property. He furnished the same and got the vehicle released. Subsequently, petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2874/2009 to release the title deed contending that it is needed for raising a housing loan. By Annexure-A1 order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. Petitioner challenged that order before Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.R.P. No.1/2010. By Annexure-A2 order, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision. This petition is CRMC 413/10 2 filed thereafter to quash Annexures-A1 and A2 orders and to release the title deed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that petitioner is not the accused and he is the registered owner of the vehicle and the title deed is needed to raise a housing loan and petitioner is prepared to execute bond for sufficient amount and in such circumstances, Annexures-A1 and A2 orders are to be quashed. 4. Learned Magistrate and Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petitions holding that as the vehicle is liable to be confiscated later, sufficient security is to be obtained for release of the vehicle and the vehicle was released to the petitioner on executing a bond and as security, title deed of the property was received by the court and if the title deed is released to the CRMC 413/10 3 petitioner, it is likely that he may transfer the property or encumber the same and hence, the title deed cannot be released to the petitioner. I find that the orders are absolutely correct and there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference. If the petitioner needs the title deed, he is at liberty to furnish bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle and get the title deed released from the learned Magistrate. Petition is dismissed. 19th February, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv