Remanded

Smikesh D v. Sidhukkul Akbar

Kerala HC10 Oct 2012Crl.MC/2460/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the magistrate to release the seized motor vehicle to the petitioner or apply additional conditions, as the first respondent failed to collect it despite the order. The magistrate must dispose of a fresh application within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned magistrate to examine the petitioner after notice and dispose of the application for interim custody within eight weeks.

Smikesh D Vs Sidhukkul Akbar — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/18TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl. MC. No. 2460 of 2012 ()

¶6

CMP NO.3553/2012 of J.M.F.C.-I, HOSDRUG

¶7

PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

SMIKESH D, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. SUDHAKARAN, ELAMBACHI TRIKARIPUR, P.O. SOUTH TRIKARIPUR.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI. M. RAMESH CHANDER SRI. ANEESH JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED/STATE:

¶11

1. SIDHUKKUL AKBAR S/O. KHADEEJA, ANAKAL P.O., PETTIKUNDU - 671313

¶12

CHEEMENI VILLAGE.

¶13

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHEEMENI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 31.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl. MC. No. 2460 of 2012 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

ANNEX. A1 -	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, HOSDURG DATED 27.04.2011.
ANNEX. A2 -	COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.04.2012.
ANNEX. A3 -	COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I HOSDURG DATED 26.05.2012.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.2460 of 2012

¶29

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2012

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime, the investigation of which is stated to be in

¶32

progress. Offence involving Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is imputed in the crime involving a motor vehicle. During the course of the investigation that motor vehicle was seized into custody by the police. Rival claims were set forth by the petitioner and another to seek interim custody of the vehicle from the magistrate both moving separate application.

¶33

The learned magistrate, on the materials placed, allowed the claim of the first respondent directing release of the vehicle to him on interim custody, subject to some conditions, and the claim

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.2460 of 2012

¶35

:: 2 ::

¶36

moved by the petitioner was turned down. Annexure A3 is the order passed by the magistrate. That order was passed on 26.5.2012. Till date, the first respondent has not complied with the direction given for taking the vehicle on interim custody which continues to remain in sun and rain, is the submission of the counsel Though notice was issued to the 1^st respondent, after service, he has not entered appearance. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented, I find continuation of the vehicle in its present condition under the custody of the police will not be conducive to justice and more so, it may result in total loss of the vehicle in course of time. In case there is default on the part of the first respondent to comply with conditions imposed for release of the vehicle on interim custody, the learned magistrate, after hearing the

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.2460 of 2012

¶38

:: 3 ::

¶39

investigating officer represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, and also with notice to the first respondent, shall examine whether interim custody can be given to the petitioner on the conditions imposed under Annexure A3 order or such other additional conditions as may be required. The magistrate is directed to consider application, if any, moved afresh by the petitioner for release of vehicle expeditiously, and to dispose it within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

¶40

Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.

¶41

Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE

¶42

sk/-

¶43

//true copy//

Smikesh D v. Sidhukkul Akbar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smikesh D v. Sidhukkul Akbar

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

Nujeeb Rahman Vs Rasnimol

Pradeepan Vs State of Kerala

Asharaf Backer Vs Central Bureau of Investigation/Acb

Jomon Cyriac Vs Anilkumar

Mohanan & Ors. Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Varkey Goerge Vs State of Kerala