Kerala High Court
State Bank Of India vs State on 31 January, 2017
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/1ST PHALGUNA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 1391 of 2017 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 3890/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
------------------------------------------
CRIME NO. 363/2016 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER
I.E., CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS
OFFICE, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
INFOPARK POLICE STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. SHRI.JOSE.V, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MR.VAREED, 39/D-50,
(NEW HOUSE NO.37/480), PVWRA 67B, JAWAHAR LANE, PONEVAZHY,
PONEKKARA, AIMS POST, EDAPALLY,ERNAKULAM-682041.
BY SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1391 of 2017 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
-----------------------------------
ANNEXURE A - THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM PETITION.
ANNEXURE B- TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT NO.148/2016-17 DATED
31.01.2017.
ANNEXURE C- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.1.2017 IN CMP.NO.3890 OF
2016 IN CRIME NO.363 OF 2016 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, KAKKANAD.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
----------------------------------------
R.AV //TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1391 of 2017
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2017
ORDER
The petitioner, State Bank of India had filed an application under section 451 Cr.P.C for release of the vehicle which was under hypothication with them and involved in Crime No.363/2016 of Inforpark Police Station for offence punishable under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The application was allowed inter alia on a condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.7,53,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each. However, being a financial institution it was directed that the petitioner will be at liberty to produce a bank guarantee or any other security for the aforesaid purpose in view of notice.
2. The contention was that since the vehicle was seized infurtherance of proceedings under SARFAESI Act, it can be released to the bank. However, the observation of the court below that the second respondent being a registered owner of the vehicle may be having a claim Crl.M.C.No.1391 of 2017 2 against the petitioner and the vehicle shall be released only with proper bond does not arise. It was further contended that the direction to provide a bank guarantee as well as imposing any huge amount on executing a bond was redundant.
3. Regarding the execution of the bank guarantee, it was an optional right given to the petitioner herein being a financial institution. I cannot find anything illegal in that direction. There is an observation by the court below that the second respondent being the registered owner of the vehicle may have a claim against the petitioner herein which seems to be not warranted. However, I feel that a direction to execute a bond for Rs.7,53,000/- appears to be not required. Hence it is sufficient if the petitioner herein executes a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- All other conditions remain.
Crl.M.C is disposed of .
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
R.AV //True Copy//
Pa to Judge