CHACKO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is a third party, assails an order dated 28/01/2012 in Crl.M.P.No. 8402/2011 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvalla in Crime No. 1203/2011 of Thiruvalla Police Station for the offence under Section 5(a) of the Kerala Rationing Order 1996 read with Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955. Having heard either side, I find that the vehicle bearing registration No. KL03/A-6498 TATA 407 tempo van was seized by the Investigating Officer alleging that the said vehicle was used for the illegal transport of the wheat supplied for Public Distribution System. The petitioner, claiming to be the registered owner, filed the above petition before the trial court under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order to release the vehicle on interim custody. By the impugned order, the trial court dismissed the petition after arriving at a fining that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for disposal of the vehicle involved in the case and as such he is not inclined to allow the petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the trial court has got jurisdiction and without applying the correct law, the petition was dismissed. In support of the argument, the learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Rameshwar Rathod, 1990 AIR(SC) 1849.

(3.) Going by the above decision, I find that the ruling of the Apex Court is on an identical issue. At paragraph 6 it is held as follows: