2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 14TH POUSHA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 6029 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2021 IN CMP 2172/2021 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,KOZHIKODE IN CRIME NO.745/2021 OF
THE KASABA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
AKSHAY SUNIL
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O. SUNILKUMAR,
MANIYATHARA HOUSE, MARAD,
PACHALAM S.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-PIN - 682304.
BY ADV ADITHYA RAJEEV
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI - PIN - 682031.
2
STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE CUSBA POLICE STATION,
PUTHIYARA,
KOZHIKODE - PIN - 673004.
SR.PP - SRI. HRITHWIK C.S.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.6029 of 2021
2
Even though the original cause of action had arisen in Goa police station limits, it is appropriate that the same be given to the interim custody of the petitioner who claims to be the registered owner.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 451 - INTERIM CUSTODY - STOLEN VEHICLE - JURISDICTION - VEHICLE SEIZED FROM WITHIN KASABA POLICE STATION LIMITS, KOZHIKODE - ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION HAD ARISEN IN GOA POLICE STATION LIMITS - HELD, EVEN THOUGH THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION HAD ARISEN IN GOA POLICE STATION LIMITS, IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT THE SAME BE GIVEN TO THE INTERIM CUSTODY OF THE PETITIONER WHO CLAIMS TO BE THE REGISTERED OWNER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's Bajaj KTM 200 Duke Motorcycle was stolen from Anjuna beach police station limits in Goa. He filed a complaint in Anjuna Beach police station but no action was taken. Later the vehicle was seized from Kasaba police station limits in Kozhikode, where crime No.745/2021 was registered incorporating Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. The vehicle was produced before Court and then he moved an application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.11.2021.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the Crl.M.C and directed that the vehicle be given to the interim custody of the petitioner who claims to be the registered owner on the following conditions:1. The petitioner shall produce the original documents before Court and appraise his entitlement to get interim custody of the vehicle;2. He shall execute a bond for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kozhikode;3. He shall produce the vehicle before the Court or the transferee Court or authority concerned, even if wanted in Goa police station limits, as and when necessary;4. He shall not transfer ownership or possession of the vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings;5. He shall up-keep the vehicle with proper maintenance, remitting tax, insurance premium etc;6. He shall not alter the colour and nature of the vehicle;7. He shall not use the vehicle for any illegal purpose.
Issues: Whether the vehicle should be given to the interim custody of the petitioner who claims to be the registered owner even though the original cause of action had arisen in Goa police station limits.
Ratio Decidendi: The vehicle was seized from within Kasaba police station limits, Kozhikode and thus produced before that court. The question whether it was stolen from a different police station limits is only secondary. The vehicle was lost from the petitioner prior to October, 2021, was seized by Kasaba police on 02.10.2021 and since then it is remaining in police custody exposed to sun and shower. Therefore, even though the original cause of action had arisen in Goa police station limits, it is appropriate that the same be given to the interim custody of the petitioner who claims to be the registered owner.
Final Decision: Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
ORDER
Petitioner is the registered owner of Bajaj KTM 200 Duke Motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-39-P-8381, which was stolen from Anjuna beach police station limits in Goa. According to the learned counsel, immediately after stealing of the vehicle he had given a complaint in Anjuna Beach police station but no action was taken. Later the vehicle was seized from Kasaba police station limits in Kozhikode, where crime No.745/2021 was registered incorporating Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. The vehicle was produced before Court and then he moved an application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.11.2021. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, application for interim custody of the vehicle was dismissed only on the ground that the alleged stealing had taken place in Anjuna beach police station limits in North Goa, that the Kasaba police has to send the records and the C.D files along with the vehicle to that police station and therefore, interim custody cannot be granted. Learned counsel submits that the reasoning of the learned Magistrate is faulty. He also relied on the decision reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [ (2002) 10 SCC 283 ].
4. According to the learned Senior Public Prosecutor the vehicle was seen by the Kasaba police in suspicious circumstances during night patrol, it had no number plate at the rear side. Thus the crime was registered incorporating Section 102 of the Cr.P.C and the vehicle was produced before court. Now, on the finding that the actual mischief was taken place in Anjuna Beach police station, the matter was reported to that police station and records have already been sent.
5. The learned counsel submits that ultimately it is for the jurisdictional court in Goa to take a call on the claim. I cannot agree with the reasoning shown by the learned Magistrate. The vehicle was seized from within Kasaba police station limits, Kozhikode and thus produced before that court. The question whether it was stolen from a different police station limits is only secondary. The vehicle was lost from the petitioner prior to October, 2021, was seized by Kasaba police on 02.10.2021 and since then it is remaining in police custody exposed to sun and shower. I have no doubt that the vehicle can not be kept idle for long, which will loose its value and utility. Therefore, even though the original cause of action had arisen in Goa police station limits, it is appropriate that the same be given to the interim custody of the petitioner who claims to be the registered owner on the following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall produce the original documents before Court and appraise his entitlement to get interim custody of the vehicle;
2. He shall execute a bond for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kozhikode;
3. He shall produce the vehicle before the Court or the transferee Court or authority concerned, even if wanted in Goa police station limits, as and when necessary;
4. He shall not transfer ownership or possession of the vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings;
5. He shall up-keep the vehicle with proper maintenance, remitting tax, insurance premium etc;
6. He shall not alter the colour and nature of the vehicle;
7. He shall not use the vehicle for any illegal purpose.
Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6029/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, THRIPUNITHARA SRTO Annexure II A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 745/2021 OF THE KOZHIKODE CUSBA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
A