IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3444 of 2009 ---------------------------------- [CMP.NO.7118/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CR.NO.3022/09 OF THE CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SHABEER, S/O.MUHAMMED SALI 'PRIYADARSINI' MANKULAM, MUTTADA, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3444 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 24th November 2009 O R D E R By Annexure-I order Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thiruvananthapuram directed release of car No.KL-01-AT/1234 seized in crime No.3022/2009 of City Traffic police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and quash the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate. 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 when offence alleged is under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, there is no necessity to seize the vehicle and when such a vehicle is seized, learned Magistrate was not justified in imposing the conditions. It is argued that in Annexure-I order learned Magistrate has referred about another case and the need for questioning the petitioner in that Crmc 3444/09 2 case and submitted that in view of the said observation direction to appear before the Station House Officer is for the purpose of that case and not in this case and therefore, it is to be quashed. 4. Following conditions were imposed by the learned Magistrate by Annexure-I order. 1. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum. 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, City traffic police station in person and produce all the documents relating to the vehicle. 3. On receiving the documents, the Station House Officer, City Traffic Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram is ordered to release the vehicle to the petitioner, on obtaining a receipt to be produced before the court. When the direction is only to execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum, I find no reason to interfere, as the bond was only for a portion of the value of the vehicle. 5. Main grievance of the petitioner is the direction to appear before the Station House Officer and Crmc 3444/09 3 produce the documents relating to the vehicle. Evidently, petitioner did not produce the original vehicular documents before the Magistrate. It is for that reason Magistrate directed that petitioner shall produce all the documents relating to the vehicle before the Station House Officer. When the bond is to be executed before the Magistrate, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the Magistrate that petitioner has all the vehicular documents. 6. Second condition is therefore, modified to the effect that petitioner shall produce vehicular documents before the Magistrate and Magistrate on executing bond and satisfying that petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and is having vehicular documents, shall issue a direction to the police to release the vehicle to the petitioner. If the petitioner along with that order appears before the Station House Officer, City Traffic Police Station, vehicle shall be released to the petitioner. Petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.