AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 226 wordsK.Haripal, J
Registered owners of the mini lorries bearing No.KL-44A-1548 and KL-58G-6874 which were seized by the police under Annexure C Seizure Mahazar have moved this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to return the vehicles to the petitioners, forthwith, unconditionally, in the interest of justice.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor representing the respondents.
It appears from Annexure C that both the vehicles were seized by the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector after finding that the vehicles were used for transporting ordinary earth unauthorisedly. The grievance of the petitioners is that, it has not been reported at the Court so that they have been disabled from moving application for getting interim custody of the vehicle.
It is peremptory under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that when a property is seized in connection with commission of a crime, that should be reported to the jurisdictional court with least possible delay. Here that has not been done. Therefore, the petitioners are at liberty to move the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is directed to release the vehicles to the registered owners forthwith, on production of documents proving ownership and possession, after fixing the value of the vehicles.
With these directions, the Crl.M.C is disposed of.