Disposed

Santhosh.N.v. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2008Crl.MC/63/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought interim custody of a seized lorry. Court allowed release upon deposit of Rs.25,000 and bond for Rs.1 lakh if petition to release vehicle is filed within two weeks, relying on precedent that the application itself suffices as seizure info.

What did the court decide?

Release of vehicle on interim custody subject to cash deposit of Rs.25,000, execution of bond for Rs.1 lakh, and filing an application for release within two weeks.

Santhosh.N.v. Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 63 of 2008()

¶6

¶7

CRIME NO. 995/2007 of TIRUR POLICE STATION

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

¶10

SANTHOSH N.V., S/O.VELAYUDHAN, NADUVIL VALAPPIL HOUSE, PURATHUR, P.O.PUTHUPPALLY, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TIRUR POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR , J.

¶18

==========================

¶19

CRL.M.C. No. 63 of 2008

¶20

========================== Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2008.

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner who is the registered owner of a goods carriage mini lorry bearing registration No. KRG 754 is said to have purchased the vehicle after availing of a loan from a financier. The vehicle was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 4(IA) and 21(1) of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act. Annexure 2 is the FIR registered as crime No. 995/2007. But strangely enough, the FIR is seen forwarded not to the Judicial Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offences, but to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. No report under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C is also said to have been forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirur who is the competent Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offences. The petitioner approached J.F.C.M., Tirur with a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C for interim custody of the vehicle. The said petition is said to have been returned by the office of the

¶23

CRL. M.C. NO. 63/2008 : 2 :

¶24

Magistrate for the reason that no FIR has been forwarded to the Magistrate and no report under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C has also been received by the Magistrate enabling him to entertain the petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. It is thereafter that the petitioner has approached this Court for the release of the vehicle on interim custody. Even if the police fail to report the seizure of the vehicle to the Magistrate, the application for interim custody of the vehicle by the person interested can be treated as information regarding the seizure of the vehicle so as to entertain

¶25

a request under Section 457 Cr.P.C. In the light of the decision reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal vs. State of Gujarat (2002 (10) SCC 283) , I am inclined to direct the release of the vehicle

¶26

on interim custody but subject to certain conditions. The petitioner is permitted to move the Magistrate under Section 457 Cr. P.C for the release of the aforesaid vehicle on interim custody. In case the petitioner files an application for that purpose within two weeks from today, the vehicle shall be released on interim custody subject to the following conditions:

¶27

CRL. M.C. NO. 63/2008

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

The petitioner shall make a cash deposit of Rs.25,000/-

¶30

(Rupees twenty five thousand only) before the Magistrate.

¶31

The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1 lakh with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.F.C.M, Tirur and subject to the following terms:-

¶32

a. The petitioner shall keep the vehicle in the same condition in which it is released to him and shall produce the same before the Magistrate or such authority specified by the Magistrate as and when called for.

¶33

b. The petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle wholly or in part to any other person.

¶34

c. The petitioner shall not allow the vehicle to be used for any illicit purpose.

¶35

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

¶36

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶37

¶38

CRL. M.C. NO. 63/2008

¶39

: 4 :

¶40

V. RAMKUMAR , J.

¶41

========================== CRL.M.C. No. 63 of 2008

¶42

==========================

¶43

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2008.

¶44

The registry shall call for an explanation from the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur as to why the FIR in crime No. 995/2007 registered for cognizable offences was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tirur instead of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur in flagrant violation of Section 157 Cr.P.C. Such explanation shall be obtained within three weeks from today. The registry shall also bring this matter to the notice of the Director General of Prosecution/State Prosecutor.

¶45

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶46

¶47

CRL. M.C. NO. 63/2008 : 5 :

Santhosh.N.v. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh.N.v. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Vs State of Kerala

K.Ratheeshan Vs State of Kerala

M.M.Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

S.R.Dennis Vs State of Kerala

Prabha Vs State of Kerala

M.a.Najam Vs State of Kerala