IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4763 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.198/2008 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION. ........ PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ S.SHAJAHAN, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, SHAHANAZ MANZIL, THEKKEKKULAM ROAD, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4763 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 04th day of March, 2011 ORDER Annexure-C, order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam on C.M.P.No.3143 of 2010 in Crime No.198 of 2008 of Kottiyam Police Station is under challenge. Petitioner who claimed to be the financier of a vehicle involved in the case sought its release under Sec.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Release of the vehicle was opposed by the Investigating Agency stating that at the time of seizure the vehicle was bearing a forged registration number, investigation in the matter is being proceeding and that steps have been taken to examine the vehicle by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, "the FSL”). Accepting that objection, learned Magistrate dismissed the application. Hence this petition. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is a financier of the vehicle and that no contraband was seized from the vehicle even according to the prosecution. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that since the vehicle has to be examined by the FSL, release of the vehicle at this stage is not proper. Crl.M.C.No.4763 of 2010 -: 2 :- 2. It is pointed out by learned counsel that final report in the case is already filed. But it is not clear whether the vehicle has been examined by the FSL and report in that regard has been obtained. If examination of vehicle is over, necessarily learned Magistrate has to consider whether the vehicle could be released to the petitioner who claimed to be the financier provided the vehicle has valid registration particulars. It is seen that the registered owner of the vehicle was not made a party in C.M.P.No.3143 of 2010. The vehicle cannot be released to the financier without notice to the registered owner. 3. In case the examination of vehicle by the laboratory is over, learned Magistrate shall consider the question whether the vehicle could be released to the petitioner after hearing the registered owner also. In case learned Magistrate decides to give interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner or any other person entitled to its custody learned Magistrate shall ensure that photographs of the vehicle attested by the person to whom its custody is given is obtained, he executed bond undertaking to produce the vehicle, deposited in Court the amount representing value of the vehicle as prescribed under the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 and also consider Crl.M.C.No.4763 of 2010 -: 3 :- the question whether in case vehicle is liable to be confiscated it could be released to the petitioner or any other person entitled thereof. Learned Magistrate shall also ascertain through the registering authority whether registration particulars produced by the person claiming custody are genuine. Resultantly this petition is allowed by way of remand. Annexure-C, order is set aside. C.M.P.No.3143 of 2010 is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal after consideration of all relevant aspects stated above and as the law provides. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-