Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

N. Mohammed Vs. the State of Kerala

N. Mohammed vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 30, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1016563

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

N. Mohammed

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....451 of cr.p.c by filing c.m.p.no.5221/2013 in crime no.273/2013 of adhur police station for the interim custody of the above vehicle. the grievance of the petitioner is that though he had preferred the above petition as early as on 10/6/2013, the same was not considered by the learned magistrate and no order is passed. therefore, the above m.c is filed under section 482 of cr.p.c with a prayer to direct the judicial first class magistrate court, kasaragod to dispose of annexure-a2 petition within a time frame fixed by this court, following the decision of the apex court in sunder bai ambalal desai vs. state of guarat (2003(2) klt 1089).2. heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.3. it appears that the above referred vehicle is involved in crime no.273/2013 of adhur police station and crl.m.c.no.3178 o”2. thus the petitioner preferred annexure-a2 petition for interim custody of the said vehicle under section 451 of cr.p.c. it appears that the above referred vehicle was seized by the police in the above crime on 5/6/2013 and within 5 days from the date of seizure, the petitioner preferred the above petition but no order is seen passed by the learned magistrate. the apex court in the decision referred above has categorically pointed out the requirement of releasing of the properties seized in crime cases and directed all concerned to see that the properties so seized are not decayed or its value deteriorated and giving custody of the same to proper person. so according to me the learned magistrate is bound to consider the annexure-a2 on merit and pass appropriate orders. in the result this m.c is disposed of directing the judicial first class magistrate court, kasaragod, to take up annexure- a2 and consider the same on merit and pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of producing the copy of this order by the petitioner in the said court. sd/- v.k.mohanan, judge as

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2013 8TH SRAVANA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 3178 of 2013 () ------------------------------------- CMP 5221/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 273/2013 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD ......... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- N. MOHAMMED, AGED 5 YEARS S/O.PAKKEERA SAHIB, RESIDING AT PARAPPEEDIKA HOUSE MULIYAR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENTS/STATE: ---------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ADHUR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss Crl.MC.No. 3178 of 2013 () ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-14-H-5473. ANNEXURE A2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN C.M.P.NO.5221/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KASARAGOD. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss V.K.MOHANAN, J.

---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3178 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2013 ORDER

The petitioner who is the RC owner of the Excavator bearing registration No. KL-14-H-5473 approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod under Section 451 of Cr.P.C by filing C.M.P.No.5221/2013 in Crime No.273/2013 of Adhur Police Station for the interim custody of the above vehicle. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he had preferred the above petition as early as on 10/6/2013, the same was not considered by the learned Magistrate and no order is passed. Therefore, the above M.C is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C with a prayer to direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod to dispose of Annexure-A2 petition within a time frame fixed by this Court, following the decision of the Apex Court in Sunder Bai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Guarat (2003(2) KLT 1089).

2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. It appears that the above referred vehicle is involved in Crime No.273/2013 of Adhur Police Station and Crl.M.C.No.3178 o”

2. thus the petitioner preferred Annexure-A2 petition for interim custody of the said vehicle under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. It appears that the above referred vehicle was seized by the Police in the above crime on 5/6/2013 and within 5 days from the date of seizure, the petitioner preferred the above petition but no order is seen passed by the learned Magistrate. The Apex Court in the decision referred above has categorically pointed out the requirement of releasing of the properties seized in crime cases and directed all concerned to see that the properties so seized are not decayed or its value deteriorated and giving custody of the same to proper person. So according to me the learned Magistrate is bound to consider the Annexure-A2 on merit and pass appropriate orders. In the result this M.C is disposed of directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, to take up Annexure- A2 and consider the same on merit and pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of producing the copy of this order by the petitioner in the said Court. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE AS

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial