Sharavana Kumar Veluswamy vs State Of Kerala

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J

The petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-47BA-7881, has approached this Court by filing this Crl.M.C. challenging one of the conditions imposed in Annexure-C order.

The aforesaid vehicle was seized by the Police alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471 read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. The petitioner submitted C.M.P.No.2615 of 2022, seeking release of the said vehicle. That application was allowed by the learned Magistrate subject to certain conditions. Petitioner is aggrieved by condition No.2, which is to the effect that the petitioner shall not take the vehicle out of the jurisdictional limit of Koothuparambu Police Station, for a period of two months or till the investigation is over, whichever is earlier. This condition is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.

Heard Sri.Babu S. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the subject vehicle is a National Permit lorry and the condition imposed is too onerous and it would cause serious prejudice to him. It is pointed out that, while complying the aforesaid contention, he will be prevented from utilizing the vehicle for any practical purposes.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid prayer. It was further contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that, even if this Court is inclined to modify the aforesaid contention, the same has to be substituted with a proper condition, not to alienate the vehicle or alter the same.

After considering all the relevant inputs, I am of the view that condition No.2 imposed by the learned Magistrate is too onerous and unwarranted. Admittedly, the vehicle is a National Permit lorry and merely because of the reason that the aforesaid vehicle was happened to be seized in connection with an offence, the registered owner thereof cannot be prevented from utilizing the same for his beneficial purposes. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid condition would certainly prevent him from making use of the said vehicle in a viable manner. In my view, the other conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate along with a further condition not to alter or alienate the vehicle would be sufficient for the purpose of the order that has been passed as per Annexure-C order. In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of modifying condition No.2 in the manner as follows:

Condition No.2 in Annexure-C order shall be substituted with the following condition: Petitioner shall not alter or alienate the vehicle without obtaining prior permission from the Court.

Subject to the above, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of.