Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Jasmin K vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2020

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

  TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941

                    Crl.MC.No.127 OF 2020(E)

   AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 8138/2019 DATED 11-12-2019 OF
       JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,THALASSERY

     CRIME NO.683/2019 OF Chokli Police Station , Kannur


PETITIONER:

              JASMIN K.
              AGED 32 YEARS
              W/O NOUSHAD K, KATTIL HOUSE, PULIYANAMBRAM,
              PERINGATHUR P.O.THALASSERY KANNUR DISTRICT-670
              675

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.JACKSON JOHNY
              SRI.MUHAMMED YASIL
              SMT.ROSIN JOSEPH

RESPONDENT/STATE:

      1       STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
              OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

      2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
              CHOCKLI POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO 683 OF 2019),
              KANNUR DISTRICT-670 672.


              SRI C K PRASAD-PP

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31.01.2020, THE COURT ON 04.02.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.127 OF 2020(E)

                                   2



                   R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
              -----------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C No.127 of 2020
              -----------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 4th day of February,2020

                              ORDER

On 27.11.2019, 1.530 grams of ganja, 2.40 grams of charas, 40 milligrams of MDMA, two bottles of nicotine fluid and e-cigarettes were seized from the car KL-18-K-3198 and the accused persons who were travelling in it. The car was also seized by the police. A case was registered as Crime No. 683/2019 of the Chockli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 22(a) and 20(b)(ii)A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also under Section 4(1) read with 7 of the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Bill, 2019.

2. The petitioner, who is the wife of the registered owner of the above mentioned car, filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalasserry praying that the car may be released to her interim custody. As per Annexure- A1 order, learned Magistrate dismissed the aforesaid application, Crl.MC.No.127 OF 2020(E) 3 relying upon the decision of this Court in Shajahan v. Inspector of Excise: 2019(5) KHC 401.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that the Station House Officer of Chockli Police Station (the second respondent) may be directed to release the car to her.

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

5. In Shajahan (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that the Magistrate has got no power under Section 451 Cr.P.C to release a vehicle seized in connection with commission of an offence punishable under the Act.

6. In the light of the decision in Shajahan (supra), the petitioner could not successfully challenge Anenxure-A1 order passed by the learned Magistrate and she does not do so in this petition. What is stated in the petition is that the petitioner had approached the officer specified under Section 52A(1) of the Act for granting interim custody of the vehicle to her but he declined to do so.

7. No material whatsoever is produced before this Court to show that the petitioner had approached the officer specified under Section 52A(1) of the Act for granting interim custody of the vehicle to Crl.MC.No.127 OF 2020(E) 4 her and that the the prayer made by her in that regard was rejected by such officer. On this sole ground, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not made any submissions or advanced any arguments before this Court on the question whether an officer specified under Section 52A(1) of the Act has got power to release a vehicle seized under the provisions of the Act to the interim custody of any person. Therefore, that question is not considered here and it is left open.

Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

                                 Sd/-R.    NARAYANA PISHARADI
                                               JUDGE

lsn
 Crl.MC.No.127 OF 2020(E)

                               5


                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2019 IN
                     C.M.P. NO 8138 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, THALASSERY IN CRIME NO 683/2019 OF CHOCKIL POLICE STATION RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE LSN