Sindhu Babu vs State Of Kerala on 30 May, 2007

Kerala High Court
Sindhu Babu vs State Of Kerala on 30 May, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1673 of 2007()


1. SINDHU BABU, BINDHU BHAVANAM VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :30/05/2007

 O R D E R






                               R. BASANT, J.

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

                     CRL.M.C.NO. 1673 OF  2007

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

                Dated this the  30th day of May, 2007



                                   ORDER

The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle which was seized

in connection with an abkari offence. Proceedings under

Sec.67B of the Abkari Act were initiated. Application under

Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed and the vehicle now

remains in the custody of the petitioner on the strength of a

bond executed by her undertaking to abide by the conditions.

2. Subsequently, an order under Sec.67B of the Abkari

Act has been passed confiscating the vehicle. The learned

Magistrate, in these circumstances, issued directions to the

petitioner to surrender the vehicle released to her. The

petitioner has come to this Court pleading ignorance about any

such order under Sec.67B. In any case, it is now admitted that

a copy of the order has by now been served on the petitioner.

The petitioner’s prayer now is very limited. She prays that she

may be given breathing time to prefer an appeal under

CRL.M.C.NO. 1673 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

Sec.67E of the Abkari Act and secure interim orders. In the

meantime, the order directing production of the vehicle before

the learned Magistrate may not be enforced, it prayed.

3. In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that

the petitioner can be given some time as prayed for. This

Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, allowed and it is directed

that the learned Magistrate shall not enforce the direction to

produce the vehicle before 30/6/07. It shall be open to the

petitioner, in the meantime, to prefer an appeal and secure

interim orders and move the learned Magistrate on the strength

of such interim order, if any, to show that the vehicle is not liable

to be re-possessed now.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *