IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 CRL.A.No. 617 of 2011() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/03/2011 IN CRMP 3397/2001 IN SC.41/2011 of SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASE .................... APPELLANT(S): / CLAIM PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------ P.ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ISMAYIL, PULLANIKKATTIL HOUSE, PAINKANNUR, VALANCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.P.K.ABDURAHIMAN (POOLACKAL KARATCHAL) SRI.T.R.TARIN RESPONDENT(S):/ COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE, TRICHUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. *ADDL.R4. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY NEWDELHI SRI.M.AJAY, SPL. P.P FOR NIA FOR ADDL.R4 * ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.6.2011 IN CRL.MA.NO.5328/2011 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb V.RAMKUMAR & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ---------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.617 OF 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who claims to be the registered owner of the Maruti 800 STD E-1 car bearing registration No.KL-10/M 8044 challenges the order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the Special Court for NIA cases dismissing his application under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the said vehicle. The vehicle was seized by the first respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha Police Station on 22.07.2010 in connection with Crime No.704 of 2010 of Muvattupuzha Police Station involving offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 323, 324, 326, 341, 427, 506(ii) and 307 read with 149 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908 and Sections 15 read with 16, 18, 18(B), 19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the NIA. One Kunsummu was the registered owner of the vehicle and the 26th accused in the case one Moitheenkutty, who is the brother of the petitioner herein was keeping the vehicle. While so, after the occurrence in this case, Crl.Appeal No.617 OF 2011 2 he sold it to one Mohammed Sajad and got it re-transfered in the name of the petitioner (who is none other than his brother), on 15.10.2010, that is, three months after the seizure of the vehicle. The Special Court has given valid reasons as to why interim custody of the vehicle can not be given to the petitioner. We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Special Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE dmb