The Court set aside specific conditions imposed under an order granting interim release of a seized vehicle, holding that transferring the vehicle is not required since a photograph already exists for trial identification purposes.
Conditions Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of the impugned order are set aside and the bond, if any, executed is cancelled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 5807 of 2016 ()
CMP.NO. 4483/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MANJERI CRIME NO. 1430/2012 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
---------------------------
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
HAMEED, S/O.MOHAMMED, CHULLIKKALATH HOUSE, NEDUMPARA, ELANKUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VALEED, S/O.USMAN, NEERULPAN HOUSE, PATHAPIRIYAM, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
CRL.MC.NO.5807/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
| ANNEX A | CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/8/2013 IN CMP.NO.4483/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-1, MANJERI |
|---|---|
| ANNEX B | COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO.1430/2012 BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MANJERI |
| ANNEX C | COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO.1430/2012. |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.
Crl.M.C. No. 5807 of 2016
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2016
O R D E R
~~~~~~~~
1.The petitioner is the registered owner of a Toyota Innova Car bearing Reg.No.KL-10-AG-313. The said vehicle was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Manjeri Police Station in connection with Crime No.1430 of 2012 of Manjeri Police Station. The petitioner filed an application seeking interim release of the vehicle and by Annexure-A order dated 17.8.2013, the said application was allowed subject to conditions.
Crl.M.C. No.5807 of 2016 -2-
final report would not reveal that the vehicle was used by the accused Nos. 1 to 6 for any purpose relating to the commission of the offence. Reliance is also placed to the judgments of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003(2) KLT 1089] and also to General Insurance Council and Others V State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [2010 (6) SCC 768] to contend that production of the vehicle for the purpose of trial is not necessary and photographs of the vehicle can be used as the secondary evidence during the trial. Summing up, it is submitted that the condition imposed that the vehicle shall not be transferred or alienated; the direction to produce the vehicle as and when required to do so, are all conditions which are not required to be imposed in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
3.The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get
Crl.M.C. No.5807 of 2016 -3-
instructions in this regard. It is submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances, the production of the vehicle at the stage of trial is not required.
4.It is borne out from the order that a photograph of the vehicle has already been taken and the petitioner has endorsed his signature on the back side of the photograph. In case the identification of the vehicle is required for any purpose at the stage of trial, the said photograph can be used as laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra. This petition will stand allowed and the Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of the impugned order is set aside. The bond, if any, executed shall stand cancelled.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE
Ps/20/10/16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether conditions requiring transfer restriction and vehicle production in an interim release order are necessary given that a photograph was already seized and used for identification.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of GujaratRelied on¶32
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003(2) KLT 1089]
General Insurance Council and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and OthersRelied on¶32
General Insurance Council and Others V State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [2010 (6) SCC 768] · Who else cites this
Hameed, S/O.Mohammed
State of Kerala
Raja Vijayaraghavan, V.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Raja Vijayaraghavan, V.
Parties & counsel
