The court emphasized the necessity of obtaining an official valuation for the interim release of a seized vehicle under the relevant statutory provisions.

ORDER

Dated this the 16th day of August, 2022 This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C') seeking to modify a condition imposed while passing an order in Crl.M.P.No.1300/2021 in Crime No.1304/2021 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, copy of which is produced alongwith the petition on hand as Annexure A3.

2. Crl.M.P.No.1300/2021 is an application filed by the petitioner herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam (for short ‘the court below’) under Section 451 Cr.P.C seeking for interim release of the vehicle seized in Crime No.1304/2021 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was allegedly involved in the transportation of 500 ml of arrack in contravention of the provisions of Kerala Abkari Act 1 of 1077 (for short ‘the Act’).

3. In the application filed by the petitioner under Section

451 Cr.P.C, the court below has passed an order allowing interim custody of the vehicle on the following conditions: “1) Petitioner shall produce the original documents of the vehicle with copy for comparison.

2) Petitioner shall deposit cash security worth Rs.2,60,000/-.

3) An inventory with photographs of the Vehicle shall be prepared at petitioner's expenses and shall be signed by the petitioner and C.D/Negative and Bill of the photographs shall be produced.

4) Petitioner shall not alienate or dispose off the Vehicle and shall produce the same before the court and Appropriate Authority as and when required.

5) The vehicle shall not be used for any illegal activity.”

4. The 2nd among the condition is now under challenge and the petitioner seeks for a modification of Rs.2,60,000/-, directed to be deposited as cash security. According to the learned counsel, the vehicle is of the model 2016 and therefore the valuation depended upon by the court below is improper and incorrect. According to the learned counsel the vehicle costs only a sum less than Rs.2,60,000/- and therefore a lenient view may be taken by this Court in the matter of fixation of cash security and imposing it as a condition, while ordering interim custody.

5. It is found from the impugned order that the court below has directed the Assistant Executive Engineer, Mechanical Sub Division, Chalakkudy to assess the value of the vehicle. The vehicle was valued by him at Rs.2,60,000/- and relying on it condition No.2 was imposed. Under Section 53B of the Act, when a court is exercising jurisdiction under Section 451 Cr.P.C for granting interim custody of the vehicle, it has to obtain a valuation certificate from an ofÏcer empowered by the provision itself and to impose the value of the vehicle assessed by the ofÏcer as cash security. Here the person from whom valuation is sought by the court below is an empowered ofÏcer under of the Act. Therefore, there is absolutely no illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the impugned order to be intervened.

Crl.M.C fails and is dismissed. Impugned order is confirmed.