Allowed

Sathiyamma v. State

Kerala HC7 Feb 2007Crl.MC/214/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a vehicle owner, challenged an order rejecting her application for release of her car involved in the crime. The Court set aside the order as it lacked application of mind and directed the Magistrate to hear the fresh application for release in light of the State's consent.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Magistrate was set aside and the petitioner was directed to file the application afresh for release of the vehicle.

Sathiyamma Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 18TH MAGHA 1928

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 214 of 2007()

¶6

-----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/11/2006 IN ORDER IN CMP.8981/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO.333 OF 2006 OF NOORANAAD POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

SATHIYAMMA, PALAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP

¶11

SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶15

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANAD POLICE STATION.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R.BASANT, J

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.214 of 2007

¶20

Dated this the 7th day of February, 2007

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner claims to be the owner entitled to possession of a Maruti Wagon-R car, which is involved in Crime No.333 of 2006. The vehicle has been produced before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle before the learned Magistrate. But the learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the said prayer on the ground that investigation is pending.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order reveals absence of application of mind. It is not necessary to continue to retain the vehicle in the custody of the court. The vehicle should have been released to the petitioner by the learned Magistrate, it is submitted.

¶24

Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits and a statement to that effect is filed by the Investigating Officer, that the State has no objection in the vehicle being released to the registered owner of the vehicle. The petitioner claims to be the registered owner. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned order can be set aside and the learned Magistrate can be directed to dispose of the application

¶25

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.214 of 2007

¶27

filed by the petitioner afresh and to direct release of the vehicle to the

¶28

registered owner on appropriate conditions.

¶29

This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, allowed to the

¶30

above extent.

¶31

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶32

rtr/-

Sathiyamma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathiyamma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vilasini Vs R.D.O., Sub Divisional Magistrate

Bell House Associates Pvt.Ltd. Vs Asst.Registrar of Companies

Bell House Associates Pvt.Ltd. Vs Asst.Registrar of Companies

Sainudeen Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Joy Vs M.J. Titus

K.Pratheeksh Vs State of Kerala