IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4775 of 2010() ------------------------- CMP.2733/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PEERUMEDU .................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED: --------------------------- VISHAL, S/O.REMANAN, VISHAL BHAVAN, ELANTHOOR KARA, ELANTHOOR VILLAGE, KOZHANCHERI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, VANDIPERIYAR EXCISE RANGE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C.No.4775 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging order dated 29/9/2010 of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peerumedu refusing interim custody of currency notes, mobile phone and driving licence of the petitioner. Case is that petitioner was found driving a lorry which contained separate cells allegedly for illicit transportation of spirit. Offence was detected on 29/01/2010 and the above said articles along with the vehicle were seized. It is seen from the impugned order that learned Magistrate observed that since investigation is not completed, request for release of the articles cannot be allowed. Learned counsel submits that the offence attributed is only under Section 61 of the Kerala Abkari Act and that the currency notes, mobile phone and driving licence are personal property of petitioner which is not in any way connected with the alleged offence. It is also contended by learned counsel that driving licence of the petitioner is necessary for him to make out a Crl.M.C.No.4775 of 2010 2 livelihood. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. It is seen from the impugned order that request to release the articles was dismissed since investigation is not completed. At this stage, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. But, I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to approach learned Magistrate at a later stage and to request release of the articles and if any such request is made by the petitioner, learned Magistrate shall consider the application and pass appropriate orders on merit of the application. 3. This petition is closed with the above direction. (THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4775 of 2010 3 Crl.M.C.No.4775 of 2010 4 THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J. Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011