IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2315 of 2010() ------------------------- CMP.3071/2010 OF JFCM-I, HOSDURG IN CR.NO.224/2010 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- NOUFAL.P.K, S/O.ALAVI, AGED 29 YEARS, THOFEEQ MANZIL, PO,PADANE, CHERUVATHUR VIA, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWICK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C..No.2315 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5 th day of July, 2010 ORDER Petitioner who is the 2nd accused in Crime No.224/2010 of Chandera Police Station for offences punishable under Section 457, 380 and 461 IPC challenges Annexure I order dated 10.06.2009 as per which J.F.C.M-I, Hosdurg refused the release of the auto-rickshaw on interim custody to the petitioner, who claims to be the registered owner of the same. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- “On 16.4.2010 sometime in between 9.30 and 10.15 p.m., Ummer Farook Masjid which is the mosque at Padanna, Nileshwaram was burgled after breaking open the door of the mosque and cash worth Rs.4,25,000/-, mobile phone with sim card, ATM card and passport of the Imam of the mosque were stolen. “ 3. During the course of investigation, the Police recovered Rs.1,25,000/- from the petitioner, who is the 2nd Crl. M.C. No. 2315 of 2010 2 accused in the case. The 1st accused in the case, who is the principal offender, is said to be absconding. Since the auto- rickshaw in question was not only used for carrying the booty, but a portion of the stolen cash was recovered from the petitioner who was driving the auto rick shaw in question. I do not find any good reason to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate. There is every likelihood of the petitioner indulging in similar offences using the auto rickshaw. This order will not however preclude the petitioner from claiming final custody of the vehicle under Section 452 Cr.P.C, if he succeeds in establishing his claim in that regard. Reserving the above right, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj