MADHUSOODHANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 5th accused in a prosecution, inter alia, under Sec.27 of the Arms Act and Sec.302 read with Sec.149 of the IPC.

(2.) The crux of the relevant allegation is that an autorikshaw has been used for transportation of the arms in question. That autorikshaw was seized. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the said autorikshaw. He applied for release of the vehicle to his custody. The prayer was rejected by the learned Magistrate holding that a heinous offence has been committed making use of the vehicle. The vehicle may be liable for confiscation under Sec.32 of the Arms Act, it was observed. It is, in these circumstances, that the impugned order was passed rejecting the prayer for release of the vehicle.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no contention that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle. Even assuming that ultimately the vehicle may be found liable for confiscation, there is absolutely no reason to insist that the vehicle must continue in the custody of the court exposed to sun and rain and liable for deterioration. At any rate, inasmuch as the vehicle is not required for further investigation or prosecution, direction must have been issued subject to appropriate conditions for release of the vehicle to the petitioner, submits the learned counsel.