IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33265 of 2009(C)
1. SARAFUDHEEN.M.P,S/O.MAYAN,3/299,
... Petitioner
2. SHOUKATHALI.C.P,S/O.ABOOBACKER,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PALAKKAD SOUTH
... Respondent
2. DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF
For Petitioner :SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :26/11/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).33265/2009
--------------------
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are owners of contract carriages. Their
vehicles together with the live chicken carried therein, were
intercepted and seized on 14.11.2009 on the allegation that
they were used to transport live chicken from the State of
Tamil Nadu in which process, the dealer who had hired their
vehicles had used forged negotiable instruments to pay the
sales tax on the goods transported by the petitioner. This
writ petition is filed aggrieved by the delay on the part of the
respondents in releasing the petitioners’ vehicles. The
petitioners contend that under Section 51 of the VAT Act,
they are only bound to ensure the proper documents
accompany the goods transported and that no liability can be
fastened on them if a forged negotiable instrument is used to
pay sales tax. On this ground they challenge the continued
detention of their vehicles. In this writ petition, the
petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to forthwith
release their vehicles.
2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submits on instructions that the petitioners’
W.P.(C).33265/09
2
vehicles were seized in connection with Crime No.333/09 and
315/09 of Palakkad South Police Station and that after the
seizure, the vehicles were produced before the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. The learned Government
Pleader submits that as the vehicles have already been
produced before the competent criminal court, it is for the
petitioners to move that court under Section 451 and 457 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In my opinion as the petitioners’ vehicles have been
seized in connection with two crimes and a report has
already been filed in the competent criminal court and the
vehicles were also produced before the learned Magistrate,
the petitioners should move the court below seeking release
of their vehicles either under Section 451 or 457 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. Without prejudice to such right and
reserving liberty with the petitioner to move the competent
court, the writ petition is closed. The court below shall
endeavour to pass orders on the petitioners’ applications for
release of their vehicles expeditiously. The petitioners’
contentions on the merits are kept open.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge
mrcs