IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3724 of 2009() ------------------------------------ MP.3778/2009 IN CRIME NO.1146/2009 OF of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHAFI, S/O. HAMZA KOYA, DOOR NO. 4/1589, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI. BY ADV. MR.MANSOOR.B.H. SMT.M.S.SUMEEDA RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.3724 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 15th December 2009 O R D E R KL-03/P.9618 was seized by the police in crime No.1146/2009 of Fort Cochin police station on the allegation that the vehicle was used by the accused for kidnapping the victim in that case from the place of his employment. It is reported that how the vehicle came to the possession of the petitioner is also to be investigated. Petitioner filed M.P.3778/2009 under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for interim custody of the vehicle contending that he is the registered owner of the vehicle and he is running a travel agency and the vehicle was given on hire and he is prepared to abide by any condition and therefore, interim custody of the vehicle is Crmc 3724/09 2 to be granted. By Annexure-IV order learned Magistrate dismissed the petition finding that the vehicle was seized on 15/10/2009 and was produced before the court on 20/10/2009 and the registration certificate of the vehicle shows that petitioner became the registered owner only later on 30/10/2009 and in such circumstances, vehicle cannot be released to the petitioner at this stage of investigation, as the entire aspects are to be investigated. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-IV order and to release the vehicle to the petitioner on interim custody. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-III petition and Crmc 3724/09 3 affidavit filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate does not disclose how petitioner obtained the vehicle, except stating that he is the registered owner of the vehicle. It is disputed that the vehicle was seized by the police on 15/10/2009. Annexure-I copy of the R.C of the vehicle shows that petitioner became the owner of the vehicle only on 30/10/2009, subsequent to the seizure and even its production before the learned Magistrate. It is in such circumstances, when the vehicle was used for commission of the offence of kidnapping, learned Magistrate finding that the entire aspects are to be investigated, refused to grant interim custody. 4. If the vehicle is not further necessary for the purpose of investigation, I do not find it necessary to retain the Crmc 3724/09 4 vehicle in the custody of the court so as to cause its deterioration of value. On sufficient conditions the vehicle could be released. But petitioner can claim interim custody only on establishing his right over the vehicle. As these aspects were not considered by the learned Magistrate, Annexure-IV order is quashed. Learned Magistrate is directed to re-consider M.P.3778/2009 and pass orders afresh, after granting opportunity to the petitioner to implead the registered owner of the vehicle as on the date of seizure and after hearing the said R.C owner if he appears and the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj. Crmc 3724/09 5