Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHIBU.S/O.MADHAVAN,MEENUMKOTTUKONAM versus STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SHIBU.S/O.MADHAVAN,MEENUMKOTTUKONAM v. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE - Crl MC No. 1888 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 10664 (19 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1888 of 2007()

1. SHIBU.S/O.MADHAVAN,MEENUMKOTTUKONAM
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE
... Respondent

For Petitioner :DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :19/06/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.1888 of 2007

Dated this the 19th day of June, 2007

ORDER

Petitioner, who is in possession of a Ford Ikon Car bearing Reg.No.K.L.17-7879 and claims to be its registered owner, is now in possession of the vehicle as per an order passed by the Magistrate, which has been upheld/modified as per order dated 21.02.2007 in Crl.M.C.No.326/2007 of this Court. The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition No.4 imposed on the petitioner. The said condition is extracted below:

"4. Petitioners shall not use the vehicle in any public place without the permission of the Court, except for the purpose of taking those vehicles for safe custody from the police station, and petitioners shall file affidavit undertaking to that effect." That condition was imposed as per order of the Magistrate dated 03.01.2007 and confirmed by this Court in the order dated 21.02.2007. A period of exceeding 5 months has now elapsed. The short prayer of the petitioner is that the said condition No.4 which obliges the petitioner not to use the vehicle in any public place may be deleted.

2. So far, no specific or acceptable material has been placed before the Court to show that this vehicle is a stolen vehicle, even though that is the theory of the prosecution. From whose possession Crl.M.C.No.1888 of 2007 2 it was stolen has not been identified so far. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the said condition No.4 can now be deleted. It can be clarified that the petitioner who is not an accused and claims to be a bona fide purchaser can use the vehicle only in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.

3. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is, allowed. The said condition No.4 is hereby deleted with the rider that the vehicle must be used in strict compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules by the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.