IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2034 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CMP.NO.1833/2011 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO.1282/2010 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------- VIGIN. R, MANNARATHU VEEDU,KURICHIMUTTAM MURI, KIDANGANNOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts CRRP.NO.2034/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 20/1/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl. R.P No.2034 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August 2011 ORDER Challenge in the revision is against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, turning down an application moved by the petitioner for releasing a vehicle seized by the police in connection with a crime namely Crime No.1282/2010 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. The 6th accused in the above case is admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle. Interim custody of that vehicle was claimed by the petitioner on the basis of a sale letter. Admittedly, such sale letter came into existence long after the registration of the crime. The 6th accused with other accused operated a recruitment agency, collected sums of money from innocent victims and swindled them, is the case to proceed against them for the offences under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC and Section 10 and 24 of Emigration Act. The application for interim custody moved by the petitioner was resisted by the investigating agency contending that the vehicle was purchased with the funds collected from innocent victims, duping them with false promises of employment abroad and, that the 6th accused, the registered owner, still remain at large evading arrest. The learned Magistrate, after considering the facts and circumstances presented in the case and taking note that the sale letter, on the basis Crl.R.P. No.2034 OF 2011 2 of which the claim was made by the petitioner, arose after the registration of the crime and that the registered ownership of the vehicle still continued with the 6th accused, dismissed the application for interim custody. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to furnish bank guarantee as to the value of the vehicle for getting it released and is also prepared to abide by such other conditions as may be ordered by this court. The right of the petitioner over the vehicle in the given facts of the case to claim interim custody of the vehicle has to be decided, to enable him to get it released on interim custody. The vehicle, it is seen, still continues under the registered ownership of the 6th accused, who after implicated in the grave crime with serious allegations referred to above, remain at large. Sale letter, on the basis of which the petitioner claimed right over the vehicle without transfer of the registration certificate has come into existence after registration of the crime. I do not find any impropriety or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate turning down the claim of the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle in the given facts of the case. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge