Kerala High Court
Dr. Geetha. K.S vs The State Of Kerala on 20 September, 2017
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/12TH KARTHIKA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 7284 of 2017 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1230/2017 of J.M.F.C.-II,
MANANTHAVADY DATED 20-09-2017
CRIME NO. 27/2017 OF MANANTHAVADY EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , WAYANAD
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :
-------------------------
DR. GEETHA. K.S,
W/O. DR. GOPAL R. K., HOUSE NO. 571, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
2ND BLOCK, RAJAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRINIVAS K. SAMPATH, S/O. K. SAMPATH,
FLAT NO.202, NO.13, 14TH MAIN,
J. C. NAGAR, KURUMBARAHALLI,
BANGALORE (NORTH), KARNATAKA.
BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :
---------------------------
THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7284 of 2017 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF JFCM COURT
NO.II, MANANTHAWADY IN CMP NO.1230/2017 DATED 20.09.2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
True Copy / P A to Judge
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
=================
Crl.M.C.No.7284 of 2017
=================
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2017
ORDER
Petitioner herein, who claims to be the power of attorney holder of the RC owner of vehicle No.KA-04-MQ-8513, Maruti Suzuki Baleno car which was involved in Crime No.27 of 2017 of Excise Range Office, Mananthavady for offences punishable under sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985, sought permission to get the vehicle released. Court below, by order dated 20th September 2017, granted relief inter alia on a condition that the petitioner shall furnish cash security equivalent to the market value of the vehicle as fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department or by Officer above the rank of an Assistant Engineer of the Public Works Department. There was a further direction that the petitioner herein shall take steps for obtaining a valuation certificate.
2. Petitioner, aggrieved by both the above conditions has approached this Court. It was contended that the court below was not justified in imposing such conditions since the RC owner was not an accused in the above case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of hearing, placed a copy of the occurrence report in Crime No.27 of 2017 of Mananthavady Excise Range to Crl.M.C.7284/17 2 establish that there are four accused, which did not include the RC owner, namely Geetha K.S. W/o. Gopal R.K. It was contended that, in the light of the above facts, court below ought to have relied on the decision of this Court in Hassainar Azeez B. v. State of Kerala (2017 (2) KHC 987), wherein, this Court at paragraph 17 had held that, if the owner is not an accused, it will be sufficient if a bond is executed.
4. In the light of the above decision, I feel that that the impugned order needs modification by permitting the petitioner herein to execute bond in place of cash security. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the direction No.(i) to get the vehicle valued by the authorities mentioned therein is likely to cause further delay and hence, he is ready and willing to produce the original invoice of the vehicle dated 03.12.2015 which shows the original price of the vehicle at the time of purchase by the RC owner. It was contended that, necessarily, the value of the vehicle could only have depreciated, still, to avoid delay, he is ready and willing to execute bond for that amount.
5. I feel that the above submission is fair and reasonable and can be accepted. Having considered this, Crl.M.C will stand allowed by modifying condition No.(i) to the extent of permitting the Crl.M.C.7284/17 3 petitioner herein to execute bond for the value of the vehicle covered by the charge invoice dated 03.12.2015. Court shall also verify whether the engine number and chassis number in the charge invoice tallies with that of the vehicle involved.
Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS Judge Sbna/3/11/17 True Copy / P A to Judge