IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 236 of 2010() ------------------------ CRMP.4232/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO.1652 OF 2009 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- FR.JAMES.P.C, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 35 YEARS, PARAKADAVIL HOUSE, MAMMATTIKANAM P.O., PAZHAYAVIDUTHI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTING THE C.I. OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 236 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have Annexure C order quashed and also for release of the vehicle. 2. Petitioner is a Priest working as Vicar of St.Maria Gorethy Church, Murukkuthotty. He is the registered owner of a Maruti car bearing registration No.KL-06-E-1795. Petitioner says that while working as Vicar, he had a stroke and he was hospitalized for three months. He had appointed a driver for his vehicle. He came to understand that the vehicle had been taken into custody by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kalamassery Police Station in connection with Crime No.1652 of 2009 of that Police Station. The offence alleged is one under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act on the ground that 15 kgs of Ganja was seen transported by accused Nos.1 to 3 in the vehicle. The second accused is none other Crl.M.C.236/2010. 2 than the driver of the petitioner, namely, Vinod. The vehicle had been seized and kept in the police station. The petitioner, being the registered owner, seeks release of the vehicle. 3. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application for release on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated. 4. The order is clearly unsustainable in law. Merely because the vehicle is liable for confiscation, that by itself is not a ground to reject release of the vehicle. There is nothing to indicate that confiscatory proceedings are commenced. Moreover, the petitioner is not an accused as of now in the case. He claims to be the registered owner and he has also produced the registration particulars as Annexure A. There is no purpose in keeping the vehicle in the police station. Hence this petition is allowed as follows: (i) The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on his producing the necessary documents before the Magistrate Court concerned. Crl.M.C.236/2010. 3 (ii) Petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the court or the authorities who are entitled to confiscate the vehicle. (iii) Petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle without the permission of the court concerned. (iv) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court below. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb. The words “Magistrate Court concerned” occurring in clause (i) in paragraph 4 of the final order dated 04/02/2010 in Crl.M.C.236/10 are corrected as “Sessions Court concerned” as per order dated 22.2.2010 in Crl.M.A.847/10 in Crl.M.C.236/10. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial) Crl.M.C.236/2010. 4