IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 7 of 2010()
1. SUMESH, S/O.SASI, AGED 25 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :21/01/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
----------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.7 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010
ORDER
Vehicle bearing registration No.TN49Q6699 was seized by
Koratty police and crime 803/2009 under Section 41(1) (d) of
code of Criminal Procedure was registered. According to the
investigating officer, registration certificate was also seized
from the car, which shows that one Raghavendra Chinnaswamy
is the registered owner of the vehicle. Petitioner filed CMP
9544/2009 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Chalakkudy under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, for interim custody contending that the said vehicle
is KL-17/C-2300 and he is its registered owner and he had
entrusted vehicle to his friend Murukan for personal use who in
turn entrusted it to Aneesh, the first accused in crime 803/2009,
and petitioner being the registered owner, the vehicle is to be
released to him and he is prepared to abide by any condition.
The prosecution opposed the application contending that
the accused in Crime 803/2009 is involved in several abkari
cases and they used the car for transporting spirit illegally and
registration No.TN49Q 6699 found on the car is a fake number
2
and investigation is in progress and so the vehicle cannot be
released to the petitioner at this stage.
By Annexure-1 order, learned Magistrate dismissed the
petition. This petition is only under Section 482 of the Code to
quash Annexure-1 order and to get interim custody of the
vehicle.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
Public Prosecutor were heard.
The argument of the learned counsel is that engine number
and chassis number of the vehicle seized by the police and that
seen in the Registration Certificate of car KL-17/C-2300 are the
same and therefore the registration certificate seized in crime
803/2009 cannot be the genuine Registration Certificate and
hence petitioner is the registered owner and therefore learned
Magistrate should have granted interim custody of the vehicle.
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the R.C. of
the vehicle found in the car, at the time of its seizure was that of
TN49Q6699 and for its verification and find whether it is
genuine or not it was sent to Tamil Nadu. It is also submitted
3
that Kadavanthara police has registered a crime under the
Abkari Act and in that crime this vehicle is involved and
Kadavanthara police have already approached the learned
Magistrate by filing a petition to release the vehicle for
investigation in that case and in such circumstances the vehicle
cannot be released to the petitioner.
On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to
interfere with Annexure-1 order at this stage. The registration
number of the car found at the time of seizure, was not the
genuine Registration Number. Even though the petitioner
claims that he is the registered owner even according to him, he
had entrusted vehicle to Murukan, one of his friends, who in turn
entrusted it to the first accused involved in the case being
investigated by Kadavanthara police and if the said vehicle was
used for transporting spirit or is involving the commission of the
offence under the Abkari Act and is liable to be confiscated, the
vehicle cannot be released to the petitioner, especially when
even the petitioner would claim that the vehicle was entrusted to
the said accused, though not personally by him but by his friend
4
to whom it was entrusted by the petitioner. Hence, at this stage
petitioner is not entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
cms