Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NJANADURAI, S/O.PAKKIANADAR versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NJANADURAI, S/O.PAKKIANADAR v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED - Crl MC No. 344 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 3148 (12 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 344 of 2007()

1. NJANADURAI, S/O.PAKKIANADAR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :12/02/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 344 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 12th day of February, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner claims to be the owner of a jeep. That vehicle is allegedly involved in the transportation of animal meat in violation of the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle in his favour. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the original documents. The petitioner preferred a revision. The learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the name of the owner in the photostat copy of the R.C. and photostat copy of Insurance certificate of the vehicle do not exactly tally.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the courts have not really considered the crucial question whether the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in the proper perspective. The petitioner has the name Njanadurai and that word is differently spelt by persons. The letters 'n' and 'j' have created all the confusion. The petitioner is willing to produce all the documents Crl.M.C.No. 344 of 2007 2 before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate may be directed to consider the original documents to be produced by the petitioner and dispose of Crl.M.P. 1765 of 2006 again, it is submitted.

3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that such a direction can certainly be issued, though I do not find sufficient justification for the failure of the petitioner to produce the original documents before the learned Magistrate at the first instance.

4. This Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexs. A and B orders, i.e. Order dt.8.11.06 in C.M.P. 1765 of 2006 by the J.F.C.M., Devikulam and order dt. 7.2.2007 in Crl.R.P. 24 of 2006 of the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha are set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of C.M.P. 1765 of 2006 afresh expeditiously. The petitioner can appear before the learned Magistrate with a copy of this order on 19.2.2007 and produce the original documents before the learned Magistrate within four days from that date.

5. Hand over copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner forthwith. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C.No. 344 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.