IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 550 of 2010()
1. RATHEESH, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :04/03/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 550 OF 2010
===========================
Dated this the 4th day of March,2010
ORDER
By Annexure AIII order Judicial First
Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Mananthavady
allowed CMP 327/2009 filed by the petitioner
under section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure
on conditions. The condition was that
petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee for
Rs.24,50,000/- as security. This petition is
filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the said condition in
Annexure AIII order.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
3. Rs.24,50,000/- was seized by the police
from KA-03/MK 6717 car at 43rd Mile Thavinjal
of Mananthavady-Thalassery Road along with
Crl.M.C.550/2010 2
7.520 litres of beer m.litres of brandy and 1.65
litres of whisky on 24.1.2009 at about 6.20 p.m
from the petitioner and the second accused. Crime
13/2009 was originally registered for the offences
under section 55(a) of Abkari Act and Section 41(1)
(d) and 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The
cash was produced before the learned Magistrate.
Learned Magistrate accepted the case of the
petitioner that Rs.24,50,000/- belongs to the
petitioner as he obtained it under an agreement for
sale and in such circumstances granted interim
custody on conditions. The argument of the
learned counsel is that if petitioner is to furnish
bank guarantee for Rs.24,50,000/- there is no
necessity to grant an interim custody and he is
prepared to furnish sufficient property as security
and to that effect Annexure AIII order may be
modified.
4. The State has not challenged Annexure AIII
order. Therefore the only question is regarding
Crl.M.C.550/2010 3
the security directed to be furnished by the
learned Magistrate. There is force in the
submission that furnishing bank guarantee for
Rs.24,50,000/- would tantamount to denial of the
interim custody. If what is needed is security
for the amount, learned Magistrate could have
directed the petitioner to furnish sufficient
security for the amount before realising the
amount.
5. In such circumstances, petition is disposed
modifying Annexure AIII order to the effect that
before realising the amount petitioner shall
furnish sufficient security before the learned
Magistrate which could either be movable or
immovable properties or bank guarantee.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006