IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4141 of 2008()
1. VARUN GOPAL, S/O.VENUGOPAL, ARUN NIVAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.ARUN RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :27/01/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
Crl.R.P. NO. 4141 OF 2008
===========================
Dated this the 27th day of January,2009
ORDER
Revision petitioner is challenging the
order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate
II, Kottarakkara dismissing C.M.P.7288/2008
filed by him under section 451 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for interim custody of
autorickshaw KL-2N 6145 seized in Crime
No.459/2008 of Pooyappally Police Station and
produced before the court. Learned Magistrate
dismissed the petition as the application was
opposed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor on
the ground that the stolen articles were
transported in the autorikshaw and the
autorikshaw is to be shown and identified in
the course of investigation and therefore it
cannot be released to the revision petitioner.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
CRRP 4141/2008 2
revision petitioner and the learned Public
Prosecutor were heard.
3. Learned counsel submitted that there is no
necessity to retain the autorikshaw so as to cause
damage to the vehicle by exposing to sun and rain
and revision petitioner is prepared to abide by any
condition and therefore the order is to be quashed
and interim custody is to be granted. Learned
Public Prosecutor submitted that out of the four
accused involved accused 1 to 3 are yet to be
apprehended and for proper investigation of the
case, custody of the vehicle is necessary and
learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the petition.
4. The prosecution case is that on 20.9.2008 at
about 3 a.m the accused in Crime No.459/2008 break
opened the room and committed theft of 200 rubber
sheets and 85 kg. of latex of rubber and thereby
caused a loss of Rs.19,000/- to the de facto
complainant and after the theft the stolen articles
were transported in autorikshaw KL-2N 6145 which
CRRP 4141/2008 3
was seized by the police and produced before the
Magistrate. Even if it is taken that the
autorikshaw was used for transporting the stolen
articles, I do not find it necessary to retain the
custody of the vehicle so as to cause damage to the
vehicle. If the case of the prosecution is that
the vehicle is to be shown to the witnesses and is
to be identified , there could be a direction to
the revision petitioner to produce the vehicle to
enable the Investigating Officer to get it
identified.
5. In such circumstance, the order passed by
the Magistrate in CMP 7288/2008 dated 29.10.2008
is set aside. The Magistrate is directed to give
interim custody of the vehicle to the revision
petitioner who is the R.C owner of the vehicle on
the following conditions. (1) Revision petitioner
shall execute a bond for Rs.30,000/- with two
solvent sureties for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
CRRP 4141/2008 4
Kottarakkara undertaking to produce the vehicle as
and when directed. (2) He shall not transfer the
vehicle without the permission of the Magistrate.
(3) He shall not use the vehicle for any illegal
purpose including transportation of stolen
articles.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006