IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1930 of 2005(A) -------------------------------------- CRMP.2138/2005 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- THE EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR, PERUMBAVOOR, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED. RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- K. RAJKUMAR, PROPREITOR, CHENDAS AYURVEDIC COMPANY, LICENCE NO.69/25D/91, PERINJANAM, THRISSUR. BY THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- Crl.M.C.NO. 1930/ 2005 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. ORDER The State challenges Annexure-I order passed by the JFCM Court, Perumbavoor under section 451 of the Cr.P.C. allowing the respondent herein, the custody of the articles produced before the court in connection with crime No.20/2005 of the Excise Range, Perumbavoor. A reading of the order will show that the Magistrate has allowed the petition apparently without considering the objections which are stated to have been raised by the State. It is contended that the Excise Inspector had filed a detailed objection against the release of the contraband articles Asavas and Arishtas which were produced before the court. The allegation was that one Pradeep and Shaji were found in possession of 1724.700 litres of Asavas and Arishtas. They were arrested and released on bail. Thondy articles were entrusted for safe custody with the Circle Inspector of Excise, Kunnathunadu. The respondent herein claimed ownership of the articles and filed a petition under section 451 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner herein, the Excise Ranger Inspector filed a detailed report objecting release of the articles. Apparently none of the objections were considered but by a cryptic order the learned Magistrate directed Crl.M,C.1930 /2005 2 release of the same on condition that a bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- is executed by the petitioner in the application. 2. I heard learned Public Prosecutor. The order under challenge is patently unsustainable. The learned Magistrate was atleast required to consider the objections raised by the complainant. The allegation is one of serious nature. The contraband articles are stated to be Asavas and Arishtas which obviously would contain ethyl alcohol. Applicant under section 451 of the Cr.P.C. merely claims ownership of the same. Assuming that he has licence to purchase the articles, it is a moot question as to whether he had manufactured the articles. There is absolutely no discussion on any of the relevant aspects. This court had while admitting the Cr.P.C. stayed the operation of the impugned order. Inspite of service of notice, the respondent has not appeared. For all these reasons, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-1 order is set aside. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ Crl.M,C.1930 /2005 3