Allowed

Sajeev v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jun 2017Crl.MC/2097/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order dismissing an application for return of a seized vehicle. It directed the release of the vehicle pending confiscation proceedings, subject to deposit of its value or furnishing a bank guarantee and other conditions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the seized vehicle subject to deposit of its value or bank guarantee, valuation, photograph submission, and undertaking to produce it if required.

Sajeev Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/8TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2097 of 2017 ()

¶6

CMP.NO. 5061/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY CRIME NO. 3276/2016 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

SAJEEV, S/O. SHAKE ISMAIL, AGED 40 YEARS, MOOPPANTTAYYATH, PAD NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM)

¶10

RESPONDENT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 2097 of 2017 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶18

--------------------- ANNEXURE 1	----------------------- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
ANNEXURE 2	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
ANNEXURE 3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27/1/2017 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
ANNEXURE 4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27/1/2017 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM AND RECEIVED BY THE COURT ON 30/1/2017.
ANNEXURE 5	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/1/2017 IN CMP NO. 5061/2016.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶24

-------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 2097 of 2017

¶25

Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2017

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶28

2.The petitioner claims to be the owner of a vehicle seized

¶29

for the violation of the provisions in the Essential Commodities Act r/w the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order. The seizure was effected on 11.10.2016. It is now in the custody of the Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappally. The petitioner filed CMP No.5061/2016 under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for the custody of the vehicle. By Annexure 5 order, the learned Magistrate dismissed it. The reason is that the proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle had been initiated. The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to set aside Annexure 5 order and direct the learned Magistrate to release the vehicle.

¶30

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶31

..2..

¶32

Crl.M.C. No. 2097 of 2017

¶33

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

4.It is now submitted that on 20.06.2017, a notice was served on the petitioner with regard to the confiscation proceedings. Before that, no notice had been served on him. There is no excuse for the officer concerned not to inform the petitioner about the confiscation proceedings for the last eight months. The vehicle has been lying idle during the said period. To avoid complete destruction of the vehicle, I am inclined to direct the learned Magistrate to pass an order for release of the vehicle subject to certain conditions.

¶35

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of as follows;

¶36

i) The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on his depositing the value of the vehicle with the District Collector or his furnishing bank guarantee for the said amount.

¶37

ii)The vehicle should be got valued by a responsible officer of the Motor Vehicles Department.

¶38

iii)The petitioner shall produce sufficient number of

¶39

Crl.M.C. No. 2097 of 2017

¶40

..3..

¶41

photographs of the vehicle. He shall make an undertaking in the bond that he will produce the vehicle as and when he is required to do so by the officer concerned in the confiscation proceedings or

¶42

by a court and in case he fails to produce it, the deposit may be forfeited or the bank guarantee may be invoked.

¶43

iv)He shall not alienate the vehicle or cause any act, which may reduce its value.

¶44

Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶45

bka/-

Sajeev v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeev 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

Navas Vs State of Kerala

Sarath K.V Vs State of Kerala

Lijin Vs State of Kerala

Saji Vs State of Kerala

Afsal Vs the State of Kerala

Afsal Vs the State of Kerala