IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 392 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRL.MP.8065/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, NORTH PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------- JOSEPH RAJESH, AGED28, S/O.P.A.THOMAS, PRIYESH VILLA, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR R.C.CHURCH, NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.SARATHKUMAR SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN CRL.M.P.7626/2000: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKKARA. 2. MUHAMMED HANIFFA, S/O.T.N.ALI HAJI, PHATHIMA MANZIL, PUTHIYA NIRATH, ELATHOOR, KOZHIKODE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 392 OF 2001 --------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ The revision petitioner is the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.8065/2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, North Paravur. There was a dispute centered round Mini Lorry bearing Reg. No.KL-13B/5986. Consequently, a case as Crime No.241/2000 was registered. The vehicle was seized. Requesting for release of the vehicle, on a claim that the revision petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, he preferred Crl.M.P.No.8065/2000. The 2nd respondent herein claiming to be the purchaser and having in possession of all the documents relating to the vehicle preferred Crl.M.P.No.7626/2000. The learned Magistrate heard both petitions together and in the light of the decision reported in 1985 Crl.L.J.951 by the impugned order released the vehicle to the 2nd respondent herein. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this Revision Petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.392/2001 2 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, at this long distance of time, I find no good reason to interfere with the order impugned. There is no error, illegality or impropriety. The decision is based upon the precedent reported in 1985 Crl.L.J.951. In the above circumstance, this Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate civil remedies in the event so advised. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/22/7