Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 367 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED06.08.2021 IN C.M.P.NO.898/2021 IN C.P.NO.23/2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NEYYATTINKARA (TEMPORARY) CRIME NO.2490/2020 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION
PETITIONER: MARY M, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O CLEMENT, TC 47/946, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS. SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SMT.KEERTHI S. JYOTHI RESPONDENTS/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 521. BY SMT.SEENA C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2022
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) seeking to quash an order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Temporary Court, Neyyattinkara (for short ‘the court below’) on 06.08.2021 in C.M.P.No.898/2021 in C.P.No.23/2021 in Crime No.2490/2020 of Vizhinjam Police Station.
2. The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized by
the investigating officer in Crime No.2490/2020 of Vizhinjam Police Station, which was registered for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of Kerala Abkari Act (for short ‘the Act’). Petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the crime, approached the above court, by filing C.M.P.No.898/2021 under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to get interim custody of the same. The application was allowed by the court. Interim custody of the vehicle was ordered to the petitioner on some conditions, the second among which was that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.3,60,000/- as cash security. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash it.
3. According to the learned counsel, the vehicle was of
the model 2018 and therefore, Rs.3,60,000/- ordered to be furnished as cash security is on the higher side. According to the learned counsel, the official concerned has valued the vehicle at Rs.3,60,000/- without any basis. Based on the contention raised, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to ascertain the basis for valuing the vehicle at Rs.3,60,000/- and to get a true assessment done through an
officer empowered under Section 53B of the Act. Accordingly valuation of the vehicle was done through Mechanical Engineer of Excise, Office of the Additional Excise Commissioner, Excise Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram and it is placed for consideration. It is reported by the official concerned that originally the value of the vehicle was fixed based on the price of the vehicle at the time of purchase, and the actual cost as on date is only Rs.1,80,000/-.
4. In the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to
allow the Crl.M.C. The second condition in the impugned order
is substituted with the following condition : ‘The petitioner shall deposit Rs.1,80,000/- as Cash security.’ Petitioner shall comply with the same and also the other ones in the impugned order. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 367/2022 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD MECHINAL SUB- DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, NETTATTINKARA, DATED 9.7.2021. Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE TEMPORARY COURT, NEYYATTINKARA IN CMP NO 898/21 IN CP NO 23/21 IN CRIME NO 2490/2020 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL // TRUE COPY// P A TO JUDGE