High Court Kerala High Court

Cana Traders vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Cana Traders vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4170 of 2009()


1. CANA TRADERS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

                For Respondent  :SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :27/01/2010

 O R D E R
                           P.BHAVADASAN, J.
                           ---------------------------
                      Crl.M.C No.4170 OF 2009
                        --------------------------------
              Dated this the 27th day of January 2010
              -----------------------------------------------------

                                   ORDER

This is a petition filed under Section under 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have Annexure A7 order

passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Ernakulam

set aside and for appropriate orders.

2. Petitioner had filed C.M.P No.3169 of 2009 before

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Ernakulam. That was

filed under Section 451/457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

seeking interim custody of the foreign made foreign liquor seized

in Crime No.65/2009 of the Excise Range, Ernakulam. The

petitioner narrates in detail his right to possess the article.

There is no dispute regarding the article seized nor about its

quality. The petitioner points out that he had produced several

documents before the court below in support of his petition but

those documents were not considered. It is pointed out that the

court below has not taken note of any of the documents

produced in support of the custody of the article.

3. Second respondent supports the petition, but the

state opposes the same. The court below was not justified in

observing that there were no documents produced in support of

Crl.M.C No.4170 OF 2009 Page numbers

the claim. It is not correct that the documents have been

produced. It is felt that reconsideration of the trial by the trial

court is necessary. Petition is allowed and the matter is remitted

to the court below for fresh consideration and disposal in

accordance with law and after hearing all the parties within two

weeks from the date of this order.

4. Send a copy of the order to the court below

forthwith.

Sd/-

                                             P.BHAVADASAN,
                                                JUDGE
                        //TRUE COPY//

vdv                                          P.A TO JUDGE