SAFEER P A Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused in Crime No.15 of 2004 of Excise Range Office, Palakkad and C.P.No.7 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad for offence punishable under Sec.55(a) of the Abkari Act. Case is that on 13.09.2004 a lorry the real registration number of which is KL- 12/8442 used a forged registration number-TN-69R/3956 and carried 12,390 litres of spirit. Excise officials inspected the vehicle and seized the lorry and spirit. Excise officials submitted Annexure-II, final report implicating petitioner also as an accused stating that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner used to transport spirit was with his knowledge. PETITIONER seeks to quash proceedings against him on the ground that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time as seen from Annexures-III and IV and that there is no allegation that at the relevant time the vehicle was in the control of petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decision in Hassanar Vs. State of Kerala (2008(1) KLT 921). Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on the basis of chassis and engine number of the vehicle involved its registered owner was traced who stated that he had transferred the vehicle as per agreement to one Venugopal. The said Venugopal transferred the vehicle to the petitioner as per agreement. It is accordingly that according to the Excise authorities the vehicle belonged to the petitioner.

(2.) ANNEXURES-III and IV are produced to show who exactly were the registered owner of the vehicle involved during the year 2003. ANNEXURES-III and IV do not say that petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle during the said time. But, so far as sale of motor vehicle is concerned, it is not registration that is relevant but the principle of the Sale of Goods Act would apply. Delivery of the vehicle and passing of consideration would pass title in the vehicle since it is a movable property.

(3.) SO far as the contention that there is no allegation that petitioner was in control of the vehicle is concerned, it is seen from Annexure-II, final report that it is specifically alleged that the vehicle belonged to the petitioner and that it was with his knowledge that the contraband was being transported. Merely for the reason that the word 'control' is not used in the final report I am not inclined to think that proceeding against petitioner has to be quashed. Petitioner has to face trial. This petition fails. It is dismissed.