IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16514 of 2008(N)
1. K. VIASINI AMMA, D/O. MEENAKSHI AMMA,
... Petitioner
2. K. SARASWATHY AMMA, D/O. MEENAKSHI
Vs
1. TNE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
3. PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O. PAPU, MADATHI
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.RAMNATH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/11/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(c) No. 16514 of 2008-N
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008
JUDMGNET
The grievance of the petitioners is that the proceedings
under the Code of Criminal Procedure is being vexatiously
initiated by the 1st respondent i.e., the Sub Divisional
Magistrate (described as the Revenue Divisional Officer).
2. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to take
instructions. A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent.
The 1st respondent in the statement makes a categoric
admission that there is no intention whatsoever to initiate any
proceedings against the petitioners. It is submitted that there
was strain in the relationship between the parties and the 1st
respondent as a revenue official had only made a bona fide
attempt to explore the possibilities of a settlement. If there be
no settlement, that is the end of the matter and the 1st
W.P.(c) No. 16514 of 2008-N
-: 2 :-
respondent does not want to take any further steps, it is
admitted categorically in the statement dated 23/7/08.
3. In the light of the stand taken by the 1st respondent, I
am satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ
petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed as
unnecessary.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WP(C).No. 30018 of 2008(W)
#1. RAVEENDRAN, S/O SREEDHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. STATE OF KERLA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
! For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
^ For Respondent : No Appearance
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
% Dated :04/11/2008
: O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
————————————————-
W.P.(c) No. 30018 of 2008-W
————————————————-
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner of a motorcycle which has
been seized on the allegation that it was used for the
transportation of 3.95 litres of IMFL. A glass tumbler as well
as a bottle of water were also allegedly seized from the
vehicle. The seizure took place in the night of 19/1/08. The
vehicle was produced before the learned Magistrate. The
petitioner applied for the release of the vehicle. That
application stands rejected by the impugned order on the
ground that the proceedings under Sec.67B of the Kerala
Abkari Act are contemplated.
2. The petitioner has come to this Court with the
grievance that his vehicle is being exposed unnecessarily to
sun and rain in the custody of the officials and that the same is
W.P.(c) No. 30018 of 2008-W
-: 2 :-
forced to endure damage and deterioration. It is prayed that
subject to appropriate conditions under Sec.451 or Sec.457
Cr.P.C. and if not by invoking the jurisdiction under Art.226 of
the Constitution, the vehicle may be directed to be released to
the petitioner it having already remained in custody from
19/1/08.
3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The
learned Public Prosecutor reports that the Excise official
concerned has been given delivery of the vehicle only on 3/11/08.
in these circumstances, some further time will certainly be
required to complete the proceedings under Sec.67B of the
Abkari Act. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that subuject
to appropriate conditions which shall protect and safeguard the
interests of the State, the vehicle can be released to the
petitioner; but the learned Public Prosecutor insist that bank
guarantee may be insisted for such release.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I have taken
note of the period during which the vehicle has remained in
custody. I have taken note of the stage of the proceedings
under Sec.67B of the Abkari Act. I have further taken note of the
nature of the allegations levelled regarding the use of the
vehicle. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am
W.P.(c) No. 30018 of 2008-W
-: 3 :-
satisfied that the vehicle can now be directed to be released to
the petitioner subject to appropriate terms and conditions.
Considering all the circumstances, I am not persuaded to agree
that it is necessary in a case like the instant one to insist on
production of bank guarantee. Appropriate other safeguards
can be insisted.
5. In the result:
(a) This writ petition is allowed.
(b) The impugned order is set aside.
(c) The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the
following terms and conditions”
(i) The petitioner shall produce before the learned
Magistrate all the documents to show that he is the owner
entitled to possession of the vehicle.
(ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for the value of the
vehicle to be determined by the learned Magistrate provisionally
with two solvent sureties each for the like to the satisfaction of
the learned Magistrate.
(iii) In such bond to be executed by the petitioner, the
petitioner shall undertake to produce the vehicle as and when
directed before the learned Magistrate or the authority under
Sec.67B of the Abkari Act if and after an order of confiscation is
W.P.(c) No. 30018 of 2008-W
-: 4 :-
passed.
(iv) If the above conditions are satisfied by the petitioner,
the learned Magistrate shall issue an order of release and ther
upon the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner in
whosesoever the custody of the vehicle be.
6. Issue a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for
the petitioner forthwith.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
W.P.(c) No. 30018 of 2008-W
-: 5 :-