Dismissed

Sumesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jan 2010Crl.MC/7/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala heard a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the dismissal of an application for interim custody of a seized vehicle. The court dismissed the petition, holding that since the vehicle was involved in an ongoing abkari investigation and the petitioner had entrusted it to an accused person, no reason existed to interfere with the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

The petition for interim custody of the vehicle and to quash the order dismissing the original application were dismissed.

Sumesh Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 7 of 2010(A) --------------------------------CMP.NO.9544/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT,CHALAKUDY ....................

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

-------------------

¶8

SUMESH, S/O.SASI, AGED 25 YEARS, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNNUKARA, S.ADUVASSERY, ALWAYE.

¶9

BY ADV. MR.P.M.ZIRAJ.

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

-------------------------------------------

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KORATTY POLICE STATION.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

prv.

¶16

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.7 of 2010

¶18

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2010

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Vehicle bearing registration No.TN49Q6699 was seized by Koratty police and crime 803/2009 under Section 41(1) (d) of code of Criminal Procedure was registered. According to the investigating officer, registration certificate was also seized from the car, which shows that one Raghavendra Chinnaswamy is the registered owner of the vehicle. Petitioner filed CMP 9544/2009 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for interim custody contending that the said vehicle is KL-17/C-2300 and he is its registered owner and he had entrusted vehicle to his friend Murukan for personal use who in turn entrusted it to Aneesh, the first accused in crime 803/2009, and petitioner being the registered owner, the vehicle is to be released to him and he is prepared to abide by any condition.

¶21

The prosecution opposed the application contending that the accused in Crime 803/2009 is involved in several abkari cases and they used the car for transporting spirit illegally and registration No.TN49Q 6699 found on the car is a fake number

¶22

¶23

and investigation is in progress and so the vehicle cannot be released to the petitioner at this stage.

¶24

By Annexure-1 order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. This petition is only under Section 482 of the Code to quash Annexure-1 order and to get interim custody of the vehicle.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶26

The argument of the learned counsel is that engine number and chassis number of the vehicle seized by the police and that seen in the Registration Certificate of car KL-17/C-2300 are the same and therefore the registration certificate seized in crime 803/2009 cannot be the genuine Registration Certificate and hence petitioner is the registered owner and therefore learned Magistrate should have granted interim custody of the vehicle.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the R.C. of the vehicle found in the car, at the time of its seizure was that of TN49Q6699 and for its verification and find whether it is genuine or not it was sent to Tamil Nadu. It is also submitted

¶28

that Kadavanthara police has registered a crime under the Abkari Act and in that crime this vehicle is involved and Kadavanthara police have already approached the learned Magistrate by filing a petition to release the vehicle for investigation in that case and in such circumstances the vehicle cannot be released to the petitioner.

¶29

On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-1 order at this stage. The registration number of the car found at the time of seizure, was not the genuine Registration Number. Even though the petitioner claims that he is the registered owner even according to him, he had entrusted vehicle to Murukan, one of his friends, who in turn entrusted it to the first accused involved in the case being investigated by Kadavanthara police and if the said vehicle was used for transporting spirit or is involving the commission of the offence under the Abkari Act and is liable to be confiscated, the vehicle cannot be released to the petitioner, especially when even the petitioner would claim that the vehicle was entrusted to the said accused, though not personally by him but by his friend

¶30

¶31

to whom it was entrusted by the petitioner. Hence, at this stage petitioner is not entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle. Petition is dismissed.

¶32

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶33

cms

Sumesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Akhilesan Vs the Station House Officer

T.M.Abdul Salam Vs Muhammed Abdul Noor

Reeny Rajan Babu and Another Vs State of Kerala

Basheer Khan Vs the State of Kerala and 2 Others

Bijukumar Vs Sindhu.K.Y.

Gireesh Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public