KRISHNA v. STATE OF KERALA

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN. THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------- O.P (Crl.) No. 732 OF 2012 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2012. J U D G M E N T In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the first accused in Crime No.59/2011 of Kumbla Police Station for offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, assails Ext.P1 order in Crl.M.P.No.3057/2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Kasaragod.

Having heard I find that during the course of investigation, autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL 14 G 560 belonging to the petitioner was seized by the Investigating Officer. The Investigation is over, the final report is filed and is in the committal stage. The petitioner moved the O.P (Crl.) No. 732 OF 2012 2 Sessions Judge with the above petition under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order to release the autorickshaw. By Ext.P1 order dated 23-09-2011, the petition was allowed. The last paragraph of the order reads as follows :- In the result, this petition is allowed. The vehicle Auto KL.14 G/569 shall be released to the petitioner on execution of bond for an amount equivalent to the value of auto rickshaw, which shall be assessed by the R.T.O concerned. The petitioner shall also furnish sureties to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). He shall produce the vehicle as and when ordered. He shall not alienate the vehicle without permission of this court.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he being the registered owner, the Sessions Judge O.P (Crl.) No. 732 OF 2012 3 should have released the vehicle unconditionally without insisting for any bond. In support of the argument the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (SC) 2003(2) KLT 1089 (SC). At para 17 of the above decision, the apex court rules "it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. "

Going by the judgment of apex court, I find that the ruling of the Apex court is not to release the vehicles without executing any bond or O.P (Crl.) No. 732 OF 2012 4 guarantee, but to release on bond and guarantee or security. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner that the Sessions Judge should have released the vehicle without any bond is devoid of merits.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in the impugned order, there is a direction to have the vehicle valued by the R.T.O and it is a cumbersome process for which the petitioner has to run to pillar to post. That argument is also devoid of merits, because in the normal course, the Sessions Judge would have issued communication to the R.T.O to value the vehicle and it is not for the petitioner to make any application to the R.T.O to ascertain the value. If the Sessions O.P (Crl.) No. 732 OF 2012 5 Judge omits to communicate R.T.O, the petitioner can very well bring it to the notice of the Sessions Judge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner was asked furnish sureties to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Petitioners could not follow as to what was intended by the Sessions Judge. It appears that the Sessions Judge intended is to execute a bond with sureties. Though there is no mention as to what is the number, in the normal course, it would be two sureties as usually followed. Of course, the Sessions Judge should have specified it. For that, the petitioner need not have rushed to this court, but could have moved the O.P (Crl.) No. 732 OF 2012 6 Sessions Judge. In the above circumstance, I find no merit in this petition warranting to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this petition is dismissed. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to see that the vehicle is released to the petitioner in terms of what is stated above, provided the petitioner is prepared to execute the bond with two solvent sureties after ascertaining the value of the vehicle. JUDGE Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, //True Copy// P.A to Judge