High Court Kerala High Court

M.Joy vs State Of Kerala on 21 April, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.Joy vs State Of Kerala on 21 April, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1380 of 2009()


1. M.JOY, PROPRIETOR, KEERTHI CAR MARKETING
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.LIJU. M.P

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :21/04/2009

 O R D E R
                          THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
              = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                       CRL. M.C. NO.1380 OF 2009
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
               Dated this the 21st        day of April,    2009

                                  O R D E R

————–

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public

Prosecutor who took notice for the respondent. Notice to the

registered owner is dispensed with since the impugned order was

passed without issuing notice to him.

2. Petitioner as financier of the vehicle claimed its interim

custody under Section 451 of the Corde of Criminal Procedure.

Impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate had ordered notice

to the registered owner on that application but even before the notice

was returned petitioner got the application advanced and pressed for

hearing of the application. Learned Magistrate observed that he was

constrained to pass an order in the circumstance, that the petitioner

has not even produced the authenticated copy of the Power of

Attorney and dismissed the application.

3. Whatever may be the claim made by the petitioner, behind

the back of the registered owner he cannot get an order for release of

the vehicle. Therefore, learned Magistrate is justified in refusing to

pass order in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the matter may be remitted to the court

CRL. M.C. No.1380 of 2009

-: 2 :-

below so that notice of the application could be given to the

registered owner. He also submits that petitioner is prepared to

produce the original or properly authenticated copy of the Power of

Attorney in the court below.

4. Since learned Magistrate has not adjudicated upon the

claim of petitioner on merits, I am inclined to accept the request

though the petitioner himself has invited the impugned order.

Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set

aside and the case is remanded to the court below. Learned

Magistrate is directed to dispose of C.M.P. No.1000 of 2009 afresh

after issuing notice to the registered owner. Petitioner shall produce in

the court below the original or properly authenticated copy of the

Power of Attorney he is relying upon.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv

CRL. M.C. No.1380 of 2009

-: 3 :-

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

===================
S.A. NO. OF 2001
===================

J U D G M E N T

APRIL, 2009