Pius Clement vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 23, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1322684

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1322684
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Decided On: Apr 23, 2024
Case Number: Crl.MC/3313/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pius Clement

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....as per annexure-2 order. aggrieved by the same, this criminal miscellaneous case is filed.3. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.4. the learned magistrate dismissed the petition filed under section 451 of the code mainly for the reason that the allegation against the accused isvery serious and the learned magistrate also observed that considering the spirit of the order of this court in w.p.(c). no.7844/2023, the petitioner is not entitled interim custody. i think, there is some force in the above finding of the learned magistrate.5. but, the counsel for the petitionersubmitted that the vehicle is the livelihood of the petitioner and he is ready to comply any conditions imposed by this court. it is also submitted that the vehicle is now parked in an open place and if it is continued to be there, it will be damaged. the public prosecutor opposed the petition and supported theorder passed by the learned magistrate.6. after hearing both sides, i think, the vehicle can be released after imposing stringent conditions. in sunderbhai ambalal desai v. state of gujarat (air 2003 sc 638), the apex court held that powersunder section 451 cr.p.c. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously after imposing appropriate conditions. i am of the consideredopinion that, the learned magistrate can be directed to release the vehicle, after imposing the conditions mentioned in sunderbhai ambalal desai’s case (supra). therefore, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of in the following manner:1. annexure-2 order is set aside.2. the judicial first class magistrate court -ii, kochi is directed to release the vehicle bearing registration no.kl-41-d-7740, after imposing the conditions mentioned in sunderbhai ambalal desai v. state of gujarat (air 2003 sc 638).3. the petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle without the permission of the court.4. the petitioner shall not commit.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 3313 OF 2024 CRIME NO.560/2024 OF PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2024 IN CMP NO.715 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOCHI PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: PIUS CLEMENT AGED 52 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH, PANICKAVEETTIL HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPU, PALLURUTHY.P.O, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 006 BY ADVS. T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR C.H.ABDUL RASAC
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031 BY ADV. SMT. SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3313 of 2024 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed challenging Annexure-2 order by which an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-2 order, passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi by which an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of Goods Carrier (Tanker)

bearing registration No.KL-41-D-7740. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 269, 278 of IPC and also under Section 120(e) of the Kerala Police Act. The vehicle was seized in connection with the above

crime and produced before the court. It is alleged that the vehicle is used for dumping sewage waste into the drainage. The petitioner filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. to release the vehicle, but the learned Magistrate dismissed the application as per Annexure-2 order. Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed under Section 451 of the Code mainly for the reason that the allegation against the accused is

very serious and the learned Magistrate also observed that considering the spirit of the order of this Court in W.P.(C). No.7844/2023, the petitioner is not entitled interim custody. I think, there is some force in the above finding of the learned Magistrate.

5. But, the counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the vehicle is the livelihood of the petitioner and he is ready to comply any conditions imposed by this Court. It is also submitted that the vehicle is now parked in an open place and if it is continued to be there, it will be damaged. The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and supported the

order passed by the learned Magistrate.

6. After hearing both sides, I think, the vehicle can be released after imposing stringent conditions. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638), the Apex Court held that powers

under     Section   451     Cr.P.C.   should    be   exercised
expeditiously       and     judiciously      after   imposing
appropriate conditions.         I am of the considered

opinion that, the learned Magistrate can be directed to release the vehicle, after imposing the conditions mentioned in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai’s case (supra). Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Annexure-2 order is set aside.

2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -

II, Kochi is directed to release the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-41-D-7740, after imposing the conditions mentioned in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638).

3. The petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle without the permission of the Court.

4. The petitioner shall not commit similar

offence in future and if such offence is committed, the Police Authorities are free to approach the lower court and the lower court can pass appropriate orders to repossess the vehicle, even though this

order is passed by this Court.

Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN nvj JUDGE APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3313/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. KL 41-D-7740 ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.NO. 26.03.2024 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties Pius Clement vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan