IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3684 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.704/2010 OF MOOVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. ................ PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- RAZEENA, W/O.SIRAJ, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, NEAR CRESENT SCHOOL, THOTTUMUGHAM. P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3684 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the registered owner of Maruti Esteem Car TN-01/P 7555, seized by Muvattupuzha Police in Crime No.704/2010, when 9th accused was arrested. According to the prosecution, 9th accused was driving the car at that time and pamphlets and other articles were found in the car. Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.872/2010 before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Muvattupuzha under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the vehicle. By Annexure-A order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that report of the Investigating Officer shows that vehicle was seized from the custody of the 9th accused and in what manner the vehicle was used in the crime can be known only after the arrest of the accused who are absconding and hence, at this stage, the vehicle cannot be released. CRMC 3684/10 2 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A order and to release the vehicle on interim custody contending that said vehicle has nothing to do with the offences alleged in Crime No.704/2010 of Muvattupuzha Police Station and petitioner is only the sister of the 9th accused and she had given the vehicle to the 9th accused and she is unaware of the criminal case. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though, originally, crime was registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 341, 427, 323, 324, 326, 506(ii), 210, 202, 212, 153A and 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, on 12.8.2010, a report was submitted before the learned Magistrate incorporating offences under Sections 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It is pointed out that Section 24 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act provides for forfeiture of CRMC 3684/10 3 proceeds of terrorism. Under Section 2 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act proceeds of terrorism is defined under clause (g) as all kinds of properties which have been derived or obtained from commission of any terrorist act or have been acquired through funds traceable to a terrorist act, irrespective of the person in whose name such proceeds are standing or in whose possession they are found and includes any property which is being used or is intended to be used for the purpose of a terrorist organisation or terrorist gang. As per clause (l) of Section 2, terrorist gang means any association, other than terrorist organisation, whether systematic or otherwise, which is connected with or involved in terrorist act. Terrorist act is defined under clause (k) of Section 2 as the meaning assigned to it in Section 15 and the expressions “terrorism” and “terrorist” shall be construed accordingly. Therefore, if the vehicle is used or intended to be used by the terrorist gang CRMC 3684/10 4 for a terrorist act, it is liable to be forfeited. The procedure for forfeiture is also provided under Section 25 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and in such circumstances, interim custody cannot be granted. 4. The fact that petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle is not disputed. It is also not disputed that 9th accused is the brother of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor also has no case that any material could be unearthed till this day to show that the vehicle was used for committing the offences alleged in the case. Moreover, sub-section (2) of Section 25 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act mandates that Investigating Officer shall duly inform the Designated Authority within forty eight hours of the seizure or attachment of the property. Sub- section (3) of Section 25 provides that Designated Authority, before whom the seized or attached property is produced, shall either confirm or CRMC 3684/10 5 revoke the order of seizure or attachment so issued within a period of sixty days from the date of such production, providing that an opportunity of making a representation by the person whose property is being seized or attached shall be given. 5. In such circumstances, when the Investigating Officer has not even informed the Designated Authority or produced the vehicle before the Designated Authority as provided under sub- section (2) of Section 25 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Designated Authority had not passed any order within the time provided under sub-section (3) of Section 25, learned Magistrate is, definitely, entitled to entertain a petition under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure and grant interim custody on sufficient conditions. Therefore, for the reason that there is a procedure provided for forfeiture of the vehicle, petitioner cannot be denied interim custody. When there is no case for the prosecution that this vehicle was used CRMC 3684/10 6 for the commission of the offences involved in the case, petitioner is entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle on conditions, subject to the right of the Investigating Agency to proceed for forfeiture as provided under the Act, if any. Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Muvattupuzha is directed to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner on executing a bond for Rupees Three lakhs with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when directed. Petition is disposed. 7th October, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv