High Court Kerala High Court

P.A.Shanavas vs State Of Kerala Rep.By on 28 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
P.A.Shanavas vs State Of Kerala Rep.By on 28 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 275 of 2011()


1. P.A.SHANAVAS, S/O.ABOOBACKER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :28/01/2011

 O R D E R
                    THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
            ====================================
                     Crl. M.C. No.275 of 2011
            ====================================
          Dated this the 28th   day of January,     2011


                            O R D E R

Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-I, order dated December

29, 2010 on C.M.P. No.3523 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial

First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam arising from Crime No.13860 of

2010 of the City Traffic Police Station. Vehicle belonging to the

petitioner is allegedly involved in an offence punishable under

Sec.304 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that the driver of the

said vehicle drove it in such a manner that it hit a car and six

persons travelling in it were killed and thereby the driver

committed the offence as alleged. Petitioner sought interim

custody of his vehicle. That application was dismissed by

Annexure-I, order. It is contended by learned counsel that it is not

necessary to retain the vehicle in the custody of court. I have

heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public

Prosecutor.

2. It is seen from Annexure-I, order that learned

Magistrate was not inclined to release the vehicle at that stage of

the investigation for the reason that paint sample from the vehicle

CRL.M.C. No. 275 of 2011
-: 2 :-

was not collected and custody of the vehicle was required for

further investigation. That order does not preclude petitioner

from moving fresh application before the learned Magistrate at

the appropriate stage. I make it clear that it is open to the

petitioner to move the learned Magistrate again to release the

vehicle and if any such application is preferred learned Magistrate

shall dispose of the same in accordance with law having regard to

the issue regarding the need to retain the vehicle in court custody

as expeditiously as possible.

Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of as above.

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv