Partly allowed

Musthafa v. Station House Officer

Kerala HC4 Mar 2015Crl.MC/914/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court modified a High Court order requiring petitioner to deposit 30% of lorry value as condition for interim custody. Court held appropriate rate is 20% under Sand Act as amended. Reasoned Magistrate should have applied Section 23A clarifying discretion. Allowed petition in part modifying condition to 20% deposit.

What did the court decide?

Objectionable condition directing deposit of 30% value modified to require deposit of 20% of value assessed by Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.

Musthafa Vs Station House Officer — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/13TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 914 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST CMP NO.474/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANNUR

¶7

CRIME NO. 1095/2013 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

MUSTHAFA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMMED HAJI, M/S.VINOD ROADWAYS, NO.83/J, G.G.BLOCK, HOOTHHALLI, MYSORE - 18. BY ADV.SRI.C.KHALID

¶10

SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MATTANNUR POLICE STATION MATTANNUR, THROUGH STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN - 682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 914 of 2015

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE NO.1: THE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1095/13 DATED 2.11.2013 REGISTERED BY MATTANNUR POLICE STATION.

¶19

ANNEXURE NO.2: THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.474/14 FILED BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MATTANNUR, DATED 22.3.2014

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.914 of 2015

¶26

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

¶27

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2015

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioner herein is the registered owner of the lorry No.KA.09B-4575 involved in a crime registered under Section 23 r/w 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short 'the Sand Act). Pending investigation, he made an application before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate granted relief on certain conditions as per the order dated 22.3.2014 in C.M.P No.474/2014. The petitioner is aggrieved by one of the conditions that he shall deposit 30% of the value of the vehicle before the court. Regarding the other conditions, it appears, he has no grievance.

¶30

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the impugned order I find that the objectionable condition requires interference by way of modification. In view of the amendment to the Sand Act incorporating Section 23A, this Court has clarified the position that Judicial Magistrates dealing with

¶31

Crl.M.C No.914 of 2015 2

¶32

applications under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of vehicle or other properties involved in such crimes will have discretion in imposing appropriate conditions for releasing properties. It appears that this decision was not brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate. In the particular facts and circumstances, I find that direction to deposit 20% of the value of the vehicle will be appropriate. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner's vehicle is not involved in any other crime under the Sand Act.

¶33

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed in part. Accordingly, the objectionable condition imposed by the court below as per the impugned order directing deposit of 30% of the value will stand modified to the effect that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the value assessed by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.

¶34

P.UBAID JUDGE

¶35

Musthafa v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musthafa v. Station House 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

Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Shaji @ Shajimon Vs State of Kerala

Ruksana Vs State of Kerala

Eldos Mathew Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy Police Station

Chandramathi Vs Sasikumar

Bindu Kumar B Vs the Excise Inspector