Kerala High Court
Mathew George vs State Of Kerala on 19 October, 2015
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MAY 2016/20TH VAISAKHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 2235 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
CMP 571/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I,
MAVELIKKARA
------------
PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------
MATHEW GEORGE, AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O.GEORGE KUTTY,
ALUMMOOTTIL THEKKATHIL,
KOMALLOOR MURI, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031,
(CRIME NO.1171/2015 OF KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT)
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 002.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
bp
Crl.MC.No. 2235 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
A1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 19/10/2015
A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE APPLICATION AS CMP NO.
571/2016 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE-1, MAVELIKARA.
A3: COPY OF THE ORDER DT 4/3/2016 IN CMP NO. 571/2016
PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT I, MAVELIKARA
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.M.C.No.2235 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of May, 2016
O R D E R
This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the order in C.M.P.No.571/2016 in Crime No.1171/2015 of Kurathikadu Police Station under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the owner in possession of a mini lorry bearing Registration No.KL-02-A-795. The vehicle was seized by the second respondent in connection with Crime No.1171/2015 of Kurathikadu Police Station, alleging that the accused persons have transported ration rice without permit alleging commission of the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 5(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1969.
3. The petitioner is the custodian of the vehicle. He filed C.M.P. No.571/2016 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara, seeking interim 2 Crl.M.C.No.2235 of 2016 custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the application vide Annexure-III order. Challenging the same, the present application has been filed.
4. Heard Sri.Vinay V, counsel representing Sri.S.Rajeev counsel for the petitioner and Sri.R.Ranjith, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a similar case, this Court has directed the Magistrate to consider and pass appropriate orders holding that Section 6E is not a bar for considering application for interim custody of the vehicle. He has also relied on the decision reported in State of M.P. and Others v. Rameshwar Rathod [1990 KHC 319].
6. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that no illegality has been committed by the Court below in passing the order. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kurathikadu Police Station in Crime No.1171/2015 alleging that the vehicle has been 3 Crl.M.C.No.2235 of 2016 used for the transport of ration articles without proper documents and also alleging commission of the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 5(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1969.
7. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.571/2016 under Section 451 of the Code for interim custody of the vehicle. But that application was dismissed by the court below on the ground that Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act is a bar for considering such application. In the decision reported in State of M.P. and Others v. Rameshwar Rathod [1990 KHC 319], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the question under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code in respect of granting interim custody of the vehicle seized under the Essential Commodities Act, has held that criminal court retained jurisdiction and was not completely ousted of the jurisdiction by provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. The same view has been taken by this Court in another case of similar nature in Crl.M.C.No.779/2015 4 Crl.M.C.No.2235 of 2016 [Ajay Kumar v. State of Kerala] dated 08.04.2015 and directed the Magistrate to consider and pass appropriate orders on that question. In the order, it is mentioned that he has not produced any valid document to substantiate that he is the owner of the vehicle. He claims that the vehicle has been obtained by him on the basis of a sale agreement. However, it is seen from the order that no such document has been produced before that court.
In view of the discussions made above, this Court feels that the order passed by the court below, dismissing the application has to be set aside and the matter has been remitted to the court below for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. So the Annexure III order dismissing Crl.M.P.No.571/2016 in Crime No. 1171/2015 of Kurathikadu Police Station is set aside. The matter is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his right to claim possession of the vehicle, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, 5 Crl.M.C.No.2235 of 2016 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE rsr