High Court Kerala High Court

N.M.Navas M vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2007

Kerala High Court
N.M.Navas M vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1156 of 2007()


1. N.M.NAVAS M S/O.MAJEED,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. S.H.O., CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE STATION,

                        Vs


1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :25/05/2007

 O R D E R
                                     R.BASANT, J.

                                  ----------------------

                             Crl.M.C.No.1156 of 2007

                            ----------------------------------------

                      Dated this the 25th day of May 2007




                                       O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in a crime registered alleging

commission of the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. A

motor cycle was seized by the police alleging that that was used for

the commission of the crime. The petitioner filed an application for

return of the said motor cycle. That petition was numbered as

C.M.P.7/07. The same was not promptly disposed of and no orders

were passed. This obliged the petitioner to file C.M.P.No.115/07 to

advance hearing of C.M.P.No.7/07 and pass appropriate orders.

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no orders have

been passed even now in C.M.P.No.7/07 and C.M.P.No.115/07. He

further submits that the learned Magistrate had initially directed the

petitioner to produce two solvent sureties with solvency certificates

for Rs.50,000/- each. Later he was directed to produce title deed of

the sureties also.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner complains that the

procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is totally incorrect. It

is, in these circumstances, prayed that appropriate directions may be

issued.

Crl.M.C.No.1156/07 2

4. Report of the learned Magistrate was called for. The

report shows that C.M.P.No.115/07 is no more pending and the same

has been disposed of. C.M.P.No.7/07 has not been finally disposed of

yet, reports the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It only remains

closed and has t be brought up for final disposal, it is submitted.

5. I must opine that the procedure adopted by the learned

Magistrate is not correct. The report of the learned Magistrate shows

that when the petition for release was filed, without disposing of the

said petition, a direction was issued to the petitioner to produce two

solvent sureties with solvency certificates for Rs.50,000/- and their

original title deeds. Why such a direction was issued, paves my

comprehension.

6. This, obviously, is incorrect. Appropriate orders have to

be passed in C.M.P.No.7/07. Question of producing sureties with or

without solvency certificates or title deeds can arise only if the

petition is disposed and depending on the condition, if any, imposed

by the learned Magistrate. After such order for release is passed,

then only the petitioner need produce sureties and documents to

prove their solvency. Here, even admittedly, the learned Magistrate

has not passed any orders on the application for release of the vehicle.

7. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that a positive

direction deserves to be issued by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate to pass appropriate orders in C.M.P.No.7/07 wherein the

Crl.M.C.No.1156/07 3

petitioner has claimed release of the vehicle. Appropriate orders on

merits shall be passed. Appropriate conditions can also be imposed.

The petitioner can thereupon either comply with the order or

challenge the order at his option. At any rate, the procedure adopted

of not disposing of the petition for release of the vehicle and directing

the accused earlier to produce sureties with solvency certificates and

title deeds cannot be approved. First of all order must be passed on

the question of the entitlement of the petitioners. Such order may be

subject to appropriate conditions. Only thereafter, the question of the

petitioner attempting to comply with the same can arise.

8. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed.

The learned Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate orders in

C.M.P.No.7/07 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a

period of ten days from the date on which a copy of this order is

placed before the learned Magistrate.

Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.1156/07 4

Crl.M.C.No.1156/07 5

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF APRIL 2007