Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOLLY SEBASTIAN,AGED 36 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MOLLY SEBASTIAN,AGED 36 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC - Crl MC No. 1929 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 10893 (21 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1929 of 2007()

1. MOLLY SEBASTIAN,AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.T.D.ROBIN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :21/06/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.1929 of 2007

Dated this the 21st day of June, 2007

O R D E R

Petitioner is the registered owner of an autorickshaw. A crime has been registered by the police alleging that the petitioner's husband is guilty of the offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. Inter alia, it is alleged that the petitioner's husband, the driver of the autorickshaw had made use of the autorickshaw as the weapon of offence to threaten, intimidate and cause injury to the defacto complainant. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the said prayer on the short ground that the autorickshaw is the weapon of offence in this case and therefore the same cannot be released.

2. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dismissal is most unsatisfactory. The learned Magistrate does not appear to have imbibed the spirit of the decision in Sunder bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [A.I.R 2003 S.C 638]. That decision is authority for the proposition that the courts must show eagerness and anxiety to ensure that valuable property does not lie unnecessarily in the court and suffer damage and deterioration. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the owner of Crl.M.C.No.1929 of 2007 2 the vehicle. There is no contention that the vehicle deserves to be retained in the police station or the court for any other specific purpose. I am, in these circumstances, of the opinion that the vehicle certainly deserves to be returned to the petitioner subject, of course, to appropriate terms.

3. In the result, this Crl.M.C is, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner subject to the following terms and directions.

i) She shall produce before the Magistrate the documents to show that she is the owner entitled to the possession of the vehicle; ii) She shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; iii) The petitioner, if the bond is executed by her, shall undertake to produce the vehicle as and when directed by the court.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/- Crl.M.C.No.1929 of 2007 3


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.