IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 589 of 2007()
1. ACHUTHA RAJ, S/O. NARAYANAN RAJ,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :12/03/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.589 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by a condition imposed by the
learned Magistrate in an order passed in his favour under Section 451
Cr.P.C. He prays that condition No.ii may be modified or altered.
2. A brief reference to the relevant facts appear to be
necessary. The dispute is about a vehicle, which is a car (Qualis).
One Vasantha is the registered owner of the said vehicle. The 1st
accused one Vijesh has allegedly purchased the vehicle from the said
Vasantha. The transfer has not been reported to the authorities and
the transfer has not been endorsed in the registration certificate. As
per the records in the Motor Vehicles Department, the 1st accused has
not got the vehicle transferred to his name. He allegedly handed over
the registration certificate of the vehicle to the petitioner. The
petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. He believed that 1st accused is the
owner and that the registration certificate handed over to him is true
and genuine. Actually the real registration certificate was pledged
with some financier. A fake registration certificate was handed over
to the petitioner. Accused No.1 was arrested in some other crime. It
came to be known that the registration certificate which the 1st
accused had handed over to the petitioner is not real and genuine.
Crl.M.C.No.589 of 2007 2
The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle and the learned
Magistrate directed release of the vehicle subject to conditions.
Condition No.i obliges the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.5 lakhs
with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. Condition No.ii
directs the petitioner to produce the registration certificate and the
connected records before the court. Condition No.3 obliges the
petitioner to produce the vehicle before court as and when he is
directed to do so.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by condition No.ii. He submits
that the registration certificate etc. have already been seized by the
police. He cannot produce them all over again. The police may be
directed to produce the documents seized before the learned
Magistrate. The petitioner shall comply with both the other
conditions imposed. In these circumstances, condition No.ii may be
deleted and the vehicle may be ordered to release to the petitioner.
4. There is no other claimant for the vehicle. Admittedly the
vehicle has been seized from the possession of the petitioner. Even
going by the prosecution version, the petitioner is the person entitled
to the possession of the vehicle as the original owner Vasantha had
transferred the vehicle to the 1st accused and the 1st accused had
transferred the vehicle to the petitioner herein. The person with
whom the original registration certificate has allegedly been produced
Crl.M.C.No.589 of 2007 3
to raise finances has not appeared before the Court as a claimant.
The seizure was effected as early as on 20.12.2006. I must remind
myself of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunder bhai Ambalal
Desai v. State of Gujarat [A.I.R (2003) S.C 638]. The vehicle is now
being exposed to sun and rain. It was seized from the possession of
the petitioner. To ensure that there is no unnecessary loss to the
vehicle, it has got to be entrusted to someone who will take care of
the vehicle. In the absence of any other claimant, I am of opinion that
the petitioner is the best person entitled to keep the possession of the
vehicle and save the same from unnecessary deterioration and
damage. Sufficient safeguards have already been insisted by the
learned Magistrate by insisting on execution of a bond for Rs.5 lakhs
with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The petitioner cannot
produce the registration certificate as the same have already been
admittedly seized by the Investigating Officer. In these
circumstances, I am satisfied that the said condition No.ii can be
deleted.
5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is, allowed. The said condition
No.ii shall stand deleted.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-