IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 567 of 2007()
1. BIJU, S/O.RAMAN, CHOLAYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :09/03/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO. 567 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of a
lorry which was seized by the Cheruthuruthy police on 7/6/06
on the allegation that it was involved in illicit transportation of
river sand. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle to
his custody under Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C. The learned
Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected the prayer of the
petitioner for release of the vehicle to his custody. The
learned Magistrate reckoned the fact that the vehicle was
earlier involved in another crime as the reason to reject the
prayer for return of the vehicle to the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has waited patiently till now hoping that the
proceedings will come to an end. But the proceedings have
not come to an end. The vehicle stands exposed to sun and
rain from 7/6/06. In these circumstances, it is prayed that to
avoid further meaningless loss and deterioration of the
CRL.M.C.NO. 567 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
vehicle, the petitioner may be given custody of the vehicle
subject to such appropriate terms and conditions which the court
deems it proper.
3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that except that the
vehicle was involved in an earlier offence and had been released
to the custody of the petitioner pending completion of the
proceedings in the earlier crime, there is no other specific
reason to insist that the vehicle must continue in custody of the
court.
4. I must alertly remind myself of the decision in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC
638). The Supreme Court has frowned upon the unfortunate
spectacle of vehicles and properties lying in the custody of the
court exposed to sun and rain. Appropriate arrangements must
be made to avoid such meaningless loss and deterioration of the
valuable property. No other claimant has come forward. The
proceedings have not been completed. In these circumstances, I
am satisfied that subject to appropriate conditions which shall
ensure the interests of justice the vehicle can be directed to be
CRL.M.C.NO. 567 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
returned to the petitioner.
5. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The vehicle in
question shall be released to the petitioner on the following
terms and conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall produce all the documents before
the learned Magistrate to satisfy the learned Magistrate that he
is the owner entitled to possession of the vehicle in question.
(ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for an amount
equivalent to the value of the vehicle as may be determined by
the learned Magistrate along with two solvent sureties each for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
(iii) The petitioner shall in such bond undertake that the
petitioner’s vehicle shall not be used for the commission of any
similar offences and that he shall be responsible to scrupulously
ensure that stipulation. He shall further undertake that he shall
pay such fine/penalty as may be imposed on him by the District
Collector in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy// P.S. To Judge