M/S.Mac Charles (India) Limited vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1841 of 2009()


1. M/S.MAC CHARLES (INDIA) LIMITED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, MARADU, ERNAKULAM.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA

                For Respondent  :ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL

The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :22/02/2010

 O R D E R
                           P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. &
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
               ....................................................................
                        Writ Appeal No.1841 of 2009
               ....................................................................
               Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010.

                                      JUDGMENT

Raman, Ag. C.J.

The appellant purchased 15 cents of land under Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is

an encumbrance certificate in relation to the said property. Later, the

appellant came to know that the property is under attachment by an

order of the court as alleged. Writ Petition was filed seeking for a writ

of certiorari or other order calling for the records relating to the Order

of seizure and to quash the same and to pass other orders, interlocutory

or otherwise, which are deemed fit and proper. The order of

attachment is not exhibited.

2. In the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the second

respondent was that since the property was suspected to have acquired

by commission of offence, the same is liable to be confiscated and

hence a notice was served on the Sub Registrar to protect the interest of

the State. The learned Single Judge did not enter any finding on the

W.A. 1841/2009 2

rival contentions raised. However, it was observed that as the seizure

is effected under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and

the property is under attachment under court orders, it is for the

petitioner to approach the court to seek appropriate relief.

3. We find that the contentions raised in the Writ Petition and

also the contentions raised in the counter affidavit are totally

misconceived. The learned Director General of Prosecution fairly

submits that there is no order of attachment as such passed by the

competent court. There is no question of seizure since the property

involved is an immovable property. However, the Police Officer

intimated the Sub Registrar not to effect any sale of property under the

misconception that the property is under attachment by an order of the

court. In view of the above position, relegating the petitioner to the

court may not be proper since there is no order of attachment by the

court to be vacated. Therefore, the only direction that is called for is to

declare that the property covered by Ext.P1 is not subject to any

attachment as on date. We declare so. However, this will not prejudice

W.A. 1841/2009 3

the right of the respondents in taking appropriate legal steps to make an

order of attachment in accordance with law. In that view of the matter,

we vacate the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dispose of the

appeal as above.

P.R.RAMAN
Acting Chief Justice

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

pms