IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3434 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 123/08 OF THENMALA POLICE STATION CRMP.5212/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ T.KARUPPASWAMY, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.THANKAYYA THEVER, DOOR NO. 100A, HIGH WAY ROAD, THIRUMALAICOIL, PANPALI VILLAGE, CHENCOTTAI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.SMITHA DIVAKARAN SRI.SREEVALSAN.V RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2008, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 3435 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.Nos. 3434 & 3435 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The common petitioner in these petitions claims to be the owner of two vehicles, which were seized in Crime No. 123 of 2008 registered alleging the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that certain articles were stolen from a premises. The petitioner is arrayed as one of the accused in the case. The stolen articles were allegedly removed from the scene of the crime in two vehicles. Those vehicles were ascertained and they were seized by the police. The petitioner claims to be the owner of those two vehicles. The petitioner claims release of the vehicles to him. The learned Magistrate by the impugned orders rejected the prayer for release of the vehicles on the ground that the petitioner has not shown satisfactorily that he is the owner of the vehicles concerned. 2. At the stage of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if one opportunity were granted to the Crl.M.C.Nos. 3434 & 3435 of 2008 2 petitioner to substantiate his assertion that he is the owner of the vehicles in question, he shall be able to successfully establish without any doubt that he is the owner of the vehicles. He has got necessary documents and witnesses to prove that he is the owner of the vehicles concerned. In these circumstances one opportunity may be given to the petitioner to prove his case that he is the owner of the vehicles in question. 3. Notice was given. The learned Prosecutor submits that the State has no objection in the prayer of the petitioner being accepted. The vehicles were not released to the petitioner as he could not satisfactorily show that he is the owner entitled for possession of the vehicles. I am satisfied that the prayer of the petitioner can be accepted and these Crl.M.Cs. can be allowed. 4. These Crl.M.Cs. are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The learned Magistrate shall consider the two applications for release of the vehicles filed by the petitioner afresh. Opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to adduce all documentary and oral evidence in support of his assertion that he is the owner entitled to Crl.M.C.Nos. 3434 & 3435 of 2008 3 possession of the vehicles in question. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 22.9.2008. Orders shall be passed by the learned Magistrate as expeditiously as possible. 5. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm