Prasob.P vs State Of Kerala on 31 August, 2006

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2651 of 2006()


1. PRASOB.P, S/O.KANDNKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHARAM.P

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :31/08/2006

 O R D E R
                                  R. BASANT, J.
                           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         Crl.M.C.No.  2651 of   2006
                          -  - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  Dated this the  31st day of   August, 2006


                                      O R D E R

The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of a

Mahindra Scorpio Jeep. The said vehicle, of which he is the

registered owner, was allegedly stolen from his residential premises

and the Chevayur police, Kozhikode has registered a crime in respect

of the said theft. Long later, the said vehicle was found to be

involved in the offence punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act

committed by two individuals. The vehicle was seized and produced.

The miscreants have used the vehicle with a forged/false number

assigned to the vehicle when they committed the offence. The

petitioner claims that the vehicle may be released to the petitioner.

But the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected the

petition on the short ground that the offence is triable by a Court of

Sessions.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Crl.M.C.No. 2651 of 2006 2

Prosecutor have been heard. There is no contention that the petitioner is in

any way involved overtly or covertly in the commission of the crime under

the Abkari Act. In these circumstances I am satisfied that the interests of

justice will be served best by directing that the vehicle be released to the

petitioner, subject to appropriate terms and conditions and without

prejudice to the rights of the authorities under the Kerala Abkari Act to

proceed against the vehicle for confiscation in accordance with law.

3. In the result:

(a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.

(b) The impugned order is set aside.

) The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate – II, Alwaye is directed

to release the vehicle to the petitioner subject to appropriate terms and

conditions to be fixed by the learned Magistrate and subject to production

of the vehicle documents by the petitioner.

(R. BASANT)
Judge

tm