IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 700 of 2009() -------------------------------------- O.R. NO.4/2008 OF POOYAM KUTTY FOREST STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.E.BABY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ISSAC, PERINGASSERIYIL HOUSE, KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KUTTAMPUZHA KARA, KOOVAPARA P.O. BY ADV. MR.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY RANGER, POOYAMKUTTY FOREST STATION (INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN OR NO.4/2008), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031. 2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KUTTAMPUZHA. 3. THE DEPUTY RANGER, POOYAM KUTTY FOREST STATION, KOOVAPPARA P.O. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 700 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This petition is filed to set aside Annexure A4 notice and direct the respondents not to seize the vehicle. For a similar relief Crl.M.C 4556/08 was filed and on 2nd January, 2009 this Court had disposed of that application. The prayer in the earlier Crl.M.C referred to was to save the petitioner's vehicle from unnecessary detention and seizure. This Court considered the matter and in paragraph 5(i) of the order directed that if the Investigating Officer finds it necessary to effect the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle, notice shall be issued to the petitioner to produce the vehicle before the Investigating Officer whereupon the petitioner can produce the vehicle and claim release of the vehicle subject to appropriate terms and conditions. Appropriate order is directed to be passed by the Investigating Officer on that application. The Court also made it clear that the petitioner shall have time of seven days from the date of receipt of the CRL.M.C. 700 OF 2009 -:2:- notice to produce the vehicle before the Investigating Officer. Ultimately the Court also made the observation that this direction shall not fetter the option of the petitioner to challenge such direction before appropriate Court at that stage. 2. Now a notice is issued by the Investigating Officer only strictly in accordance with the direction given by this Court in the earlier Crl.M.C order. The petitioner does not want to comply with the direction and even without producing the vehicle wants to quash the notice. It is improper. Therefore it is not possible to interfere with the said notice at this stage and therefore this Crl.M.C is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-