Jamsheed vs District Police Chief

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 01, 2021

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1666973

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/1666973
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Decided On: Oct 01, 2021
Case Number: WP(C)/17182/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jamsheed

Respondent

District Police Chief

Excerpt

.....by this court against them.2. the petitioner, therefore, prays thatrespondents be directed to release the aforementioned vehicles to him within a time frame to be fixed by this court; and further that 1st respondent be directed to take necessary action against respondents 2 and 3, having acted in excess of jurisdiction and in colourable exercise of power.3. the learned senior government pleader-sri.ashwin sethumadhavan, however, submitted that the afore allegations of the petitioner are wholly untenable, evident from the seizure mahazar - which has now been placed on record, along with his memo dated 14.09.2021. he pointed that, as is evident from the said mahazar, when the vehicles were intercepted, its drivers ran away and keys were deliberately broken, so that it could not be removed from the site. he submitted that, therefore, the petitioner’s allegations against respondents 2 and 3 aremerely a bid by him to create defence against the legal proceedings now pending against him.4. sri.ashwin sethumadhavan further asserted that the afore is the truth because, otherwise,the petitioner could have approached the competent court for release of the vehicles and to prove himself innocent. he thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.5. in reply, sri.k.rakesh - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that exts.p3 and p3(a) photographs will clearly show that vehicles were taken into custody by respondents 2 and 3from his premises and that this is manifest because the intimation was given to the jurisdictional geologist was given by the said authorities only on 31.08.2021, which is more than 12 days after the alleged seizure had been made. he, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be allowed.6. i am afraid that, i cannot find favourwith the petitioner's contentions in this writ petition because this court is not enjoined to act upon exts.p3 and.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 17182 OF 2021 PETITIONER: JAMSHEED AGED 29 YEARS S/O. UMMER, MUNDATHODU HOUSE, TIRUR TALUK, OZHUR AMSOM, DESOM, KORADU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI. K. RAKESH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 505. 2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 302. 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 302. SRI. ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN - SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that respondents 2 and 3 have acted with gross malafides in having taken into custody his excavator, bearing Registration No.KL-54/C-6181; along with a tipper lorry, bearing Registration No.KL-55/A-6314, from his property on 18.08.2021, without even preparing a proper mahazar. The petitioner says that this has been done by the said respondents to wreck vengeance on him because he had earlier approached this Court through W.P.C No.30144 of 2017, in which certain remarks and observations had been made by this Court against them.

2. The petitioner, therefore, prays that

respondents be directed to release the aforementioned vehicles to him within a time frame to be fixed by this Court; and further that 1st respondent be directed to take necessary action against respondents 2 and 3, having acted in excess of jurisdiction and in colourable exercise of power.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader-

Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan, however, submitted that the afore allegations of the petitioner are wholly untenable, evident from the seizure mahazar - which has now been placed on record, along with his memo dated 14.09.2021. He pointed that, as is evident from the said mahazar, when the vehicles were intercepted, its drivers ran away and keys were deliberately broken, so that

   it    could    not    be   removed      from    the    site.      He
   submitted        that,     therefore,      the        petitioner’s
   allegations       against    respondents         2     and    3   are

merely a bid by him to create defence against the legal proceedings now pending against him.

4. Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan further asserted that the afore is the truth because, otherwise,

the petitioner could have approached the competent Court for release of the vehicles and to prove himself innocent. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

5. In reply, Sri.K.Rakesh - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Exts.P3 and P3(a) photographs will clearly show that vehicles were taken into custody by respondents 2 and 3

from his premises and that this is manifest because the intimation was given to the jurisdictional Geologist was given by the said Authorities only on 31.08.2021, which is more than 12 days after the alleged seizure had been made. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be allowed.

6. I am afraid that, I cannot find favour

with the petitioner's contentions in this writ petition because this Court is not enjoined to act upon Exts.P3 and P3(a) photographs, unless its metadata had been made available before this Court, as per the provisions of the Information Technology Act. Obviously, in the absence of such information, I have no method of evaluating whether the photographs are genuine or otherwise.

7. That apart, as rightly stated by Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan - learned Senior

Government Pleader, the petitioner’s original allegation in this writ petition was that there was no mahazar, but this has been now belyed, with the same being produced on record by the respondents.

8. I am, therefore, of the firm view that

petitioner must invoke apposite remedies before the competent Court; and if he is finally exonerated or the said Court finds that the allegations against respondents 2 and 3 have many

   merit,     certainly    he     can    seek   necessary    action
   against     them      under     the     provisions       of    the
   applicable laws.        Until such time as he is able

to prove himself innocent or to establish that the seizure of the vehicles is illegal, the prayer in this writ petition for action against respondents 2 and 3 cannot be countenanced.

In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition, leaving the afore liberties open to the petitioner and making it clear that he can approach either this Court or such other competent Forum in the event he is able to establish his allegations against respondents 2 and 3 to be genuine. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SPR

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI DATED 11.08.2016. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE POLICE COMPLAINT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM ON 15.07.2021. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING VEHICLES AND ITS SEIZURE BY THE POLICE. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Jamsheed vs District Police Chief Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran