Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SAJEENA BEEVI, W/O. SHAJAHAN versus STATE, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SAJEENA BEEVI, W/O. SHAJAHAN v. STATE, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 144 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 1337 (17 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 144 of 2007()

1. SAJEENA BEEVI, W/O. SHAJAHAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :17/01/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.NO. OF 144 2007

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner is the wife of the registered owner of a vehicle - Mahindra jeep bearing registeration No.KL 2-H- 8753. That vehicle was allegedly involved in the commission of an offence under the Kerala Abkari Act. The vehicle was seized by the excise officials and was produced before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle under Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate dismissed the same on the ground that the proceedings under Sec.67(B) of the Abkari Act are liable to be initiated against the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the prayer for interim release of the vehicle under Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C. is not justified at all. The mere fact that the Assistant Excise Commissioner/authorised officer may initiate proceedings under Sec.67(B) of the Abkari Act is by itself no reason not to direct the interim release of the vehicle under Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall CRL.M.C.NO. OF 144 2007 -: 2 :- undertake to produce the vehicle before the court or the authority under Sec.67(B) of the Abkari Act. But, at any rate, there may not be a direction to retain the vehicle in the custody of the court exposing it to sun and rain and leading eventually its damage and deterioration. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) in support of his plea. No serious objection is raised by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that such conditions may be imposed which shall ensure that the vehicle is available before the court or the authority under Sec.67(B) of the Abkari Act as and when required.

3. I am satisfied that the request of the petitioner can be accepted and the vehicle can be directed to be released to the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions.

4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond undertaking to CRL.M.C.NO. OF 144 2007 -: 3 :- make available before the court or the concerned authority under Sec.67(B) of the Abkari Act for such amount equal to the value of the vehicle as may be fixed by the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioner shall produce a bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle before the learned Magistrate. (iii) The petitioner shall produce before the learned Magistrate the documents to show that she is the wife and her husband is the registered owner of the vehicle. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge


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.