The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of a vehicle seized by the Maradu Police in Crime No.116/2014, registered under sections 452, 354 and 506(ii) IPC. It is not known why or how the said vehicle was seized in the said crime. Anyway, the said crime stands quashed by this Court as per the Order dated 16.5.2014 in Cr.M.C. No.2486/2014. The petitioner claims to have purchased the vehicle from one Dr.Sunil Kothari. He made application before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi, for interim custody of the vehicle under section 451 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the necessary documents.
Crl.M.C. No. 6856/2014 -2-
2. Of course, the vehicle will have to be released to some person having right to possess the vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has necessary documents, and the petitioner can produce those documents in the Court below. When the crime stands quashed, the vehicle will have to be released to the person from whom or from whose possession the Police seized the vehicle. Still, the documents will have to be perused by the Court, and Court will have to be satisfied of the claim made on the vehicle.
Annexure A, copy of the impugned order, produced before this Court does not contain the date of the Order. This sort of practice, of issuing copies without date, will have to be seriously considered by the learned Magistrate, and such instances shall not be repeated. When a judicial order is passed, the order must contain the date of order. I find that proper decision is required on the claim made by Crl.M.C. No. 6856/2014 -3-
the petitioner when the crime itself stands quashed.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Court below, on the application made by the petitioner under section 451 Cr.P.C., is hereby quashed and the court below is directed to take decision afresh on the application as indicated above.
Sd/- P.UBAID, JUDGE jjj