High Court Kerala High Court

Anilkumar.V.R. vs The S.I. Of Police on 24 May, 2007

Kerala High Court
Anilkumar.V.R. vs The S.I. Of Police on 24 May, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1674 of 2007()


1. ANILKUMAR.V.R., VALUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, RANNY REP. BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SANTOSH KUMAR (PERUNAD)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :24/05/2007

 O R D E R
                                R.BASANT, J.

                             ----------------------

                          Crl.M.C.No.1674  of 2007

                         ----------------------------------------

                  Dated this the  24th  day of May 2007




                                    O R D E R

The petitioner’s lorry has been seized on the allegation that

it was involved in illicit transportation of sand. According to the

petitioner, his vehicle was not so involved in any illicit

transportation of sand. A crime has been registered. It is

submitted that the seizure has not been reported to the learned

Magistrate.

2. The petitioner is aware of the law. What he should do

is to file an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C for release of

the vehicle to him. If seizure of the vehicle is confirmed and

reported in response to such application under Section 457

Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate has the jurisdictional competence

under Section 457 Cr.P.C to pass appropriate orders. But the

petitioner has not filed any such application. He has come

directly to this court complaining about the course adopted by

the police of not reporting seizure to the learned Magistrate.

Why did he not apply for release under Section 457 Cr.P.C? The

Crl.M.C.No.1674/07 2

only explanation is that even if the petition is filed, the learned

Magistrate is likely to post the case to a distant date thus

effectively frustrating the remedy available to the petitioner.

3. I find no reason to invoke the powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner can apply for release of the vehicle

under Section 457 Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate.

Appropriate orders must be passed by the learned Magistrate.

Needless to say, unnecessary protraction of the proceedings

must be avoided and it is not necessary to ritualistically post the

case to any distant date by the learned Magistrate. A sense

expedition must inform the learned Magistrate in view of the fact

that the vehicle is exposed to sun and rain. With the above

observation, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed.

Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the

petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate today

itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.1674/07 3

Crl.M.C.No.1674/07 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF APRIL 2007