IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3309 of 2009()
1. HARIS, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JIJO PAUL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :27/10/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.3309 OF 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated 27th October 2009
O R D E R
As per order in Crl.M.P.1891/2009, Judicial
First Class Magistrate-I, Sulthan Bathery granted
interim custody of vehicle KL-01/N-2660 to the
petitioner on executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with
two solvent sureties for the like sum. The State
challenged that order before Sessions court, Wayanad
in Crl.R.P.13/2009. By Annexure-D order, learned
Sessions Judge modified that order directing the
petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.75,000/-.
This petition is filed challenging Annexure-D order
contending that learned Sessions Judge has no
jurisdiction to revise the order passed by the
Magistrate under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. Maruti car KL-01/N-2660, belonging to
the petitioner was taken into custody by the Circle
Crmc 3309/09
2
Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery in crime
No.200/2009 registered under Section 22(c) of N.D.P.S
Act. By order in C.M.P.1891/2009, Judicial First Class
Magistrate-I, Sulthan Bathery granted interim custody
on conditions under Section 451 of Code of Criminal
Procedure. The only question for consideration is
whether the learned Sessions Judge could have
exercised the revisional powers as against an order
passed under Section 451 of the Code.
4. The Question is settled by the decision
of this court in Vasu v. Unnikrishnan (1983 KLT 310).
It was held that if a Magistrate once passes an order
under Section 451 of the Code, it cannot be said that
till the final disposal of the case he cannot pass any
other order and there may be a case, where a person
to whom the Magistrate directed the property to be
given be reluctant to continue in custody after some
time. He is then at liberty to approach the court to
relieve him of the custody and necessarily, the
Magistrate has to pass another order afresh. It was
also noted that there may be a case where a person who
was given custody under Section 451 of the Code is not
taking care of the property or is misusing it and in
Crmc 3309/09
3
such circumstances, it would warrant a fresh order or
a modified order passed by the Magistrate and in such
circumstances, it cannot be said that an order once
passed under Section 451 of the Code is a final order.
It was therefore held that it necessarily is an
interlocutory in character and therefore, revision
petition is not competent against the order passed
under Section 451 of the Code. In view of the decision,
learned Sessions Judge could not have modified the
order by exercising the revisional powers in
Crl.R.P.13/2009.
Petition is allowed. Annexure-D order passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Wayanad in
Crl.R.P.13/2009 is quashed as revision petition is
not maintainable.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.