Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUJEEB T,S/O.MARAYAKKAR,THYIL HOUSE versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MUJEEB T,S/O.MARAYAKKAR,THYIL HOUSE v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC - Crl MC No. 1178 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 9615 (6 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1178 of 2007()

1. MUJEEB T,S/O.MARAYAKKAR,THYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SMT.GEETHA G.NAIR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :06/06/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.NO. 1178 OF 2007

Dated this the 6th day of June, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner is the registered owner entitled to possession of a vehicle which was seized by the police on the allegation that it was used for illicit transportation of river sand. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate directed that the vehicle be released to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the conditions imposed is that the petitioner must deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order. He has come to this Court with this petition under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction may be invoked to interfere with the condition imposed.

2. The extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be invoked sparingly and in exceptional CRL.M.C.NO. 1178 OF 2007 -: 2 :- cases that too only in aid of justice. I am unable to discover or invent any failure or miscarriage of justice resulting from the impugned order. Under Rule 27, the Collector is entitled to insist on deposit of the value of the vehicle as a condition for release of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate, evidently it appears to me, has chosen to direct payment of an amount of Rs.25,000/- that being the maximum fine amount which is imposable as a punishment for the offence committed. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that any vice of abuse of process of the court or failure of justice results from the impugned order.

3. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. 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.