Dismissed

Muhammed Jahangir Alam v. S.I of Police, Crime Detachment

Kerala HC16 Dec 2008Crl.MC/4867/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging dismissal of application to retrieve title deed deposited with surety. Court finds no reason to interfere as only surety is entitled to retrieve document; petition filed by counsel without vakalath for surety renders dismissal legal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to surety to approach the learned Magistrate directly.

Muhammed Jahangir Alam Vs S.I of Police, Crime… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4867 of 2008()

¶6

------------------------CMP.4384/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA ....................

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

MUHAMMED JAHANGIR ALAM S/O.LUTFUR REHMAN, 162/03,WEST RUMPARA, RAMPURA BAHAK, BANGLADESH.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CIRME DETACHMENT,ALUVA IN CRIME NO. 480/08 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

By PP SRI GIKKU JACOB

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶18

........................................... CRL.M.C.NO. 4867 OF 2008

¶19

............................................ DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the dismissal of an application filed by petitioner, the accused in Crime No.480 of 2008, to get back the title deed produced by the surety. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application among other things, holding that the title deed was produced by the surety and no application was filed by the surety and the counsel who filed the application is not having any vakalath to appear for the surety.

¶22

On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the order. When a surety produced his title deed, it is only that surety who is entitled to get back the title deed from court. Though the petition was filed by the counsel appearing for accused, he is not holding vakalath for the surety. Hence dismissal of the application is perfectly legal.

¶23

This petition is dismissed with liberty to the surety to approach the learned Magistrate.

¶24

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶25

lgk/-

Muhammed Jahangir Alam v. S.I of Police, Crime Detachment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Jahangir Alam v. S.I of Police, Crime Detachment

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

Sasidharan Vs Radhakrishnan.C.K.

K.v.Mubash Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Riyas Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Chevayur Pol

P.I.Shahulhameed and Others Vs State of Kerala

P.Rauf Vs K.a.Mohammed Ali

Vc.Pradeep Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation