Allowed

Abdul Latheef v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2019Crl.Rev.Pet/931/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition concerns the release of a lorry seized in a sand theft case. The High Court allowed the petitioner (claimed owner) release upon furnishing a bank guarantee, distinguishing the petitioner from the accused to prevent evidence loss while protecting property from weather exposure, citing Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Magistrate to release the lorry to the petitioner's interim custody upon furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000/- and filing an undertaking.

Abdul Latheef Vs the State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.931 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 1477/2019 DATED 01-06-2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.102/2019 OF Areekode Police Station, Malappuram

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

ABDUL LATHEEF AGED 47 YEARS S/O. UNNI MUHAMMED, PATHAR HOUSE, PULLIPPADAM P.O., MAMPAD AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SMT.S.K.SREELAKSHMY

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031 (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AREEKODE, POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.102/2019)

¶14

SRI C S HRITHWIK-SR PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.10.2019, THE COURT ON 05.11.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.R.P.No.931 of 2019

¶18

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶19

************************ Crl.R.P.No.931 of 2019

¶20

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2019

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner herein is said to be the owner of the lorry KL 39 A 7497 involved in Crime No.102/2019 of Areekode police station. It is a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 I.P.C and Section 23 read with 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The prosecution case is that the accused committed theft of river sand and transported it in the aforesaid vehicle.

¶23

The petitioner is not an accused in the case. He filed

¶24

application under Section 457 Cr.P.C for releasing the lorry to his interim custody. The learned Magistrate dismissed the aforesaid application stating that, if the vehicle is released, it would cause difficulties in apprehending the accused, who was the driver of the lorry. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has

¶25

¶26

Crl.R.P.No.931 of 2019

¶27

approached this Court by filing this revision petition.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The reason stated by the learned Magistrate for not releasing the vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The fact that the police could not nab the accused in the case is not a sufficient ground to refuse to release the vehicle to the proper person.

¶30

The accused in the case is the registered owner of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, he had purchased the vehicle from the accused on 20.01.2017, as per an agreement. The incident was on 13.04.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶31

has not explained how the vehicle happened to be in the possession of the accused in the case on 13.04.2019.

¶32

However, in the absence of any rival claimant to the vehicle, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle at the premises of the police station, exposing it to rain, dust and sun. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in

¶33

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat : (2002) 10

¶34

Crl.R.P.No.931 of 2019

¶35

¶36

SCC 283 , the vehicle can be released to the custody of the petitioner on taking proper security from him.

¶37

Before releasing any property to the interim custody of a person, it is necessary for the court to ensure that evidence is not lost, altered or destroyed. The court has to take necessary safeguards as directed in Sunderbhai (supra) before granting interim custody of any property. In the instant case, I find that the vehicle can be released to the interim custody of the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶38

In the aforesaid circumstances, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Learned Magistrate is directed to release the vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh only) from a nationalised bank and on filing an undertaking in the form of affidavit that he shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by that court. If the petitioner fails

¶39

to produce the vehicle as and when directed by the court, the amount of bank guarantee shall be forfeited. Before releasing the vehicle, learned Magistrate shall ensure that other safeguards

¶40

¶41

Crl.R.P.No.931 of 2019

¶42

mentioned in the decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai (supra) regarding taking of photographs of the vehicle, preparation of inventory etc are complied with.

¶43

(sd/-)

¶44

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶45

jsr

¶46

Crl.R.P.No.931 of 2019

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶50

ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 20.01.2017 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RC OWNER

¶51

ANNEXURE-A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2019 IN C.M.P.NO.1477/2019 ON THE FILES JFCM COURT I,MANJERI

¶52

ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2019 IN BAIL. APPLN.NO. 5025/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶53

RESPONDENT'SS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶54

TRUE COPY

¶55

PS TO JUDGE

Abdul Latheef v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Latheef v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.P.Iswardas Vs the Labour Enforcement Office (Central)

Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Shaji George Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Anoop.a Vs Angamaly Municipality

A.K.Viswanathan, Vs Angamali Municipality