Remanded

Muhammed Hussain, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Feb 2022Crl.MC/3422/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in criminal miscellaneous case CRL.M.C. No. 3422 of 2021, quashed an order dismissing a petition for interim custody of a vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Citing Smart Logistics and Supreme Court precedents, the court held that vehicles not used for conveying narcotics are not subject to embargo. It remitted the matter to the Magistrate to consider the application afresh

What did the court decide?

Annexure A4 order quashed; matter remitted to Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam to consider the case afresh.

Muhammed Hussain, Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 22ND MAGHA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3422 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2021 IN CRL.MP 1301/2021 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-KUNNAMKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, KARUMANTHAKAYIL HOUSE, PAROOR, PUNNAYURKKULAM, CHEMMANNUR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HUSNA, D/O.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, KARUMANTHAKAYIL HOUSE, PAROOR, PUNNAYURKKULAM, CHEMMANNUR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, KERALA. BY ADV M.R.SASITH

¶9

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031.

¶11

SR.PP - SMT. SREEJA V.

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Crl.M.C.No.3422 of 2021

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The power of attorney holder of Hundai-Eon car bearing registration No.KL-46-S-8891 moved the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kunnamkulam seeking interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. By Annexure A4 order dated 06.07.2021, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application primarily for the reason that the original documents were not produced and also in the light of the decision of this Court in Shajahan v. Inspector of Excise and others [2019 (5) KHC 401].

¶17

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶18

My pointed attention has been drawn to the First Information Report in Crime No.55/2021 of Vadakkekad police station. That crime was registered on 01.02.2021 by the Sub Inspector of Police alleging offence under Section 27 of the NDPS Act after finding the accused persons, one Muhammed Aashir and Muhammed Althaf sitting in the said car which was

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.3422 of 2021

¶20

¶21

stationary, smoking ganja beedi. That means, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, it cannot be said that the vehicle was used for the commission of the crime. In this setting in Smart Logistics v. State of Kerala [2020(5) KLT 298] after considering the scope and ambit of Section 52 of the NDPS Act, it was held that the embargo under the provision would apply only if the vehicle was used for conveying the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. Here no such allegation has been raised against the accused in the crime.

¶22

Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken exception to indefinite detention of motor vehicles in police or Court custody, without considering requests for granting interim custody. (See the decision reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2003 SC 638] ). Now the power of Attorney holder has moved before the Court. Of course, if the original documents are produced, question of releasing the vehicle has to be considered in the light of Smart Logistics, quoted supra.

¶23

Therefore, Annexure A4 order is quashed and the

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.3422 of 2021

¶25

¶26

matter is remitted to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court,

¶27

Kunnamkulam for considering the case afresh.

¶28

The Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.

¶29

Sd/- K.HARIPAL JUDGE

¶30

Jms/11.02

¶31

//True Copy// P.A to Judge

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.3422 of 2021

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3422/2021

¶35

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶36

Annexure A1	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
	EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Annexure A2	THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
	NO.55/2021 OF VADAKKEKKAD POLICE STATION.
Annexure A3	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CRL.MP NO.1301/2021
	FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KUNNAMKULAM.
Annexure A4	CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE CRL.MP
	NO.1301/2021 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KUNNAMKULAM.
Annexure A5	TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.MC NO.3825/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28.09.2020.

Muhammed Hussain, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Hussain, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaju Vs State of Kerala

Robin Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Afsal Anthrakandi Vs Chandran .K.K

Muhammed Faizal Vs State of Kerala

Sabesan Vs State of Kerala

Sirajudheen v. v. Vs State of Kerala