Partly allowed

Abdul Salam v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC3 Jan 2008Crl.MC/25/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court modified a condition imposed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on a petitioner seeking release of a seized vehicle. The court permitted the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000 cash and furnish immovable property security instead of the demanded bank guarantee.

What did the court decide?

The condition directing the production of a bank guarantee for Rs.70,000 was modified to allow a cash deposit of Rs.25,000 and immovable property security for Rs.75,000.

Abdul Salam Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 25 of 2008()

¶6

¶7

CRIME NO. 86/2007 of KANNAVAM POLICE STATION

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

¶10

K.ABDUL SALAM, S/O MAMMU, KEEZHUTTE HOUSE, VELLAMUNDA AMSOM, DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANADU DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH

¶12

RESPONDENTS: STATE

¶13

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.D.O OFFICE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DIST.

¶15

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHUPARAMBA CIRCLE, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR , J.

¶19

========================== CRL.M.C. No. 25 of 2008

¶20

========================== Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2008.

¶21

ORDER

¶22

In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who claims himself to be the registered owner of a Maruthi Omni Van bearing registration No. K 03/E 1440, challenges the condition imposed by the Revenue Divisional Officer while passing the order for releasing the said vehicle to the petitioner pending final orders for confiscation of the vehicle.

¶23

The vehicle was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kannavam while it was allegedly transporting 15 sealed cooking gas cylinders without any valid documents resulting in the registration of crime No. 86/2007 of Kannavam Police Station under Section 3(2)(1) r/w Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and 4(1) of LPG Regulation of Supply and Distribution Order, 2000. The RDO who arrived at the market value of the vehicle at Rs. 70,000/- on the basis of the report by the R.T.O, Thalassery, directed the petitioner to produce bank guarantee of a Nationalised Bank for the said amount as a condition for the release of the vehicle.

¶24

CRL.M.C. NO. 25/2008

¶25

: 2:

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is unable to raise bank guarantee for the said amount; but he is prepared to deposit Rs.25,000/- in cash and furnish property security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the RDO. Under these circumstances, the condition in the impugned order directing him to produce bank guarantee for Rs.70,000/- is modified permitting the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000/- in cash before the R.D.O., Thalassery and allowing him to furnish security in the form of immovable property for a value of Rs.75,000/- to the satisfaction of the R.D.O., Thalassery.

¶27

Crl. M.C. is disposed of as above.

¶28

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶29

¶30

CRL.M.C. NO. 25/2008 : 3:

Abdul Salam v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salam v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naseema Vs State of Kerala

Ramla Vs State of Kerala

Alappurayil Beerankutty Vs Si of Police

N.P.Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

N.P.Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Chandra Ghosh Vs State of Kerala and Another