The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are

as follows:

“i. Declare that since no provisions in the

code of criminal procedure or any other law

for the time being in force authorize,

neither the Government Pleader nor the

Investigating officer, have any power or

authority to prevent a person, having

possession, ownership and title over his

property, from alienating the said property,

merely on the basis of pendency of the

criminal case/cases.

ii. Call for the records leading to the

issuance of Exhibit P7 and quash the same, by

way of issuance of a Writ of Certiorari,as

illegal,

irrational

and

procedurally

improper.

iii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the

Respondent No.2 or any other having

jurisdiction over the Petitioner's property,

to allow the petitioner to register the Deed

of sale of his property mentioned in Exhibit

P1 and P2, in accordance with law.”

3.

Heard Sri. C.V. Manuvilsan, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi

Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents.

4.

The petitioner claims to be in absolute

3

ownership, possession and enjoyment of the

properties covered by Exts.P1 and P2. Exts.P3 to P6

are the certificates, which, according to the

petitioner,

would show that there are no

encumbrances in respect of the said properties of

the petitioner. The property in Ext.P1 is comprised

in Survey No.316, 332, 328, 327, 320, 851, 330 in

Mayannur Village, Thalappilli Taluk, Thrissur

District and the properties in Ext.P2 is in Survey

No.1760/5 of Thrissur Village, Thrissur Taluk,

Thrissur Revenue District. The grievance of the

petitioner is that although these properties have

been registered in the petitioner's name and prompt

payment of land tax has also been made and that

there are no encumbrances, liabilities or

attachments in respect of the above said

properties,the 2^nd

respondent Sub Registrar is

refusing to register the sale deeds sought to be

executed by the petitioner as per Ext.P7 memo on the

ground that he has got strict instructions and

directions from the competent Police authorities not

to allow the petitioner to alienate any of his

4

properties till the disposal of the criminal cases

referred to therein. The petitioner would place

reliance on Ext.P8 jdugment dated 3.11.2015 rendered

by this Court in W.P.(C)No.25234/2015. In respect

of similar cases, wherein this Court has held that

no provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure or

any other law for the time being in force empowers

the police authorities from restraining the right of

a person to alienate his property, merely on the

basis of pendency of criminal case etc. Similar

view has also been rendered by this Court in the

judgment in Kuriachan Chacko v. State of Kerala

and others reported in 2012 (3) KHC 549 etc.

5.

In Ext.P7 communication dated, November

2011 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Crime detachment, Thrissur City, it has been

informed that the petitioner is an accused in Crime

No.1032/2011 of Thrissur West Police Station for

offences registered under Sections 418, 420, 34 IPC

and 3,4,.5,6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation

(Banning) Act, 1958 and Section 5 r/w 7 of Drugs and

Magic Remedies Objectionable Advertisement Act etc.

5

This Court in Ext.P8 judgment has categorically held

that the provisions under the Cr.P.C. including that

in Section 102 of Cr.P.C. cannot be the legal basis

for empowering the competent Police authorities

concerned to restrict the right of alienation of the

person in respect of the property and that if the

accused has amassed this property concerned on the

amount received out of the proceeds from commission

of an offence, then the authorities concerned would

be liberty to proceed against the property in

accordance with law etc. Further that, as of now

there is no provision which would prohibit the Sub

Registrar to register a doc