THIMOTHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are moved by a person claiming to be the registered owner of a lorry, bearing Registration No. K. R. R. 2313. According to him, the lorry was transferred in his name on 3-5-1983 under a duplicate registration book, the original having been lost. He would say that the lorry was operating inside the State of Kerala and that it has no permit to operate outside the State. On a complaint by one anjaneyelu, a resident of Pidugurala, Guntur District in Andhra Pradesh, the lorry was seized by the Sub Inspector, Pidugurala with the assistance of the trichur police, in the belief that it was involved in the commission of an offence.

(2.) ANJANEYELU's complaint to the police appears to be that one George had received a consignment of rice from him to be transported to Kerala and that it did not reach its destination. George was believed to be the driver of the lorry seized. The seizure was reported to the Chief Judicial magistrate, Trichur and it was produced before him. The petitioner prayed for release of the lorry. The Magistrate declined the release on the grounds, that ss. 451 and 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had no application and that s. 457 of the Code could not be invoked, because according to him, he had no jurisdiction to deal under that section. In his view, such an application could be moved only before the Magistrate, who would have jurisdiction to hold inquiry or trial.

(3.) AS stated hereinbefore, S. 457 refers to cases of seizure under the Code and reported to a Magistrate. S. 451 deals with cases where property is produced during any inquiry or trial. S. 452 deals with cases when an inquiry or trial is concluded. (Underlining supplied ). Therefore, S. 457 deals with a situation where an inquiry or trial is neither pending nor concluded. Otherwise put, it deals with cases in the pre-trial or pre-inquiry stage.