IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2628 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.3/2009 OF KUTTIPPURAM EXCISE ............... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- USMAN, S/O.PALATHINGAL MOHAMMED, PALATHINGAL HOUSE, PERUMUDIYUR AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.JAMSHEED HAFIZ MR.S.A. SAJU. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- 1. EXCISE OFFICER, EXCISE OFFICE, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2628 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the registered owner of Motor Cycle KL-52/A 1624, seized by the police in Crime No.3/2009 of Kuttippuram Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. Petitioner filed Annexure-1 petition under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the vehicle. Under Annexure-1(a) order dated 2.7.2009, interim custody of the vehicle was granted to the petitioner on conditions. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to lift the second condition, where under, petitioner was directed to furnish Rs.40,000/- as security. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that when the maximum fine which could be awarded by the learned Magistrate for the CRMC 2628/09 2 offence is only Rs.10,000/-, the direction to furnish Rs.40,000/- as security is excessive and is to be quashed. 4. I do not find any reason to interfere with the direction to furnish Rs.40,000/- as security. Though learned counsel submitted that when the maximum fine which could be awarded is only 1/4th of the said amount, the security to be furnished under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not relative to the fine to be imposed for the offence. It is relative to the value of the vehicle. In such circumstances, when interim custody of the vehicle was granted to the petitioner, learned Magistrate was justified in directing petitioner to furnish sufficient security. Instead of depositing Rs.40,000/- as security, petitioner is at liberty to produce bank guarantee for the said amount. Petition is disposed. 24th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv