Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.MUHAMMED FIROZ, AGED 49 YEARS versus S.H.O., VADAKARA POLICE STATION

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.MUHAMMED FIROZ, AGED 49 YEARS v. S.H.O., VADAKARA POLICE STATION - WP(C) No. 4943 of 2007(L) [2007] RD-KL 4289 (26 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 4943 of 2007(L)

1. T.MUHAMMED FIROZ, AGED 49 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. S.H.O., VADAKARA POLICE STATION,
... Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :26/02/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

W.P.(C) NO. 4943 2007-L

Dated this the 26th day of February, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed under Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate refusing to return the vehicle belonging to him and seized by the police in connection with an offence punishable under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, submits that proceedings under Sec.67B of the Abkari Act were initiated against the petitioner and by order dated 27/9/06 passed by the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kozhikode, the vehicle has been ordered to be confiscated. Against that, the petitioner, through his counsel, has preferred an appeal and the Additional Excise Commissioner, Trivandrum, by order dated 23/2/07 has already disposed of that appeal dismissing the same. In these circumstances, there is no merit or grace in the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition that the vehicle may be released to the petitioner. The petitioner is W.P.(C) NO. 4943 2007-L -: 2 :- contumaciously guilty of suppressing the order of confiscation under Sec.67B of the Abkari Act and the further proceedings taken in pursuance of that order, points out the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. I am satisfied that an order of confiscation having already been passed, the petitioner cannot be heard to complain about the dismissal of the petition filed by him under Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C.

4. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the petitioner's right to challenge the order passed under Sec.67B of the Abkari Act and the further orders thereon shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this writ petition. 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.