SATHIYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the owner entitled to possession of a Maruti Wagon-R car, which is involved in Crime No.333 of 2006. The vehicle has been produced before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle before the learned Magistrate. But the learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the said prayer on the ground that investigation is pending.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order reveals absence of application of mind. It is not necessary to continue to retain the vehicle in the custody of the court. The vehicle should have been released to the petitioner by the learned Magistrate, it is submitted.

(3.) Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits and a statement to that effect is filed by the Investigating Officer, that the State has no objection in the vehicle being released to the registered owner of the vehicle. The petitioner claims to be the registered owner. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned order can be set aside and the learned Magistrate can be directed to dispose of the application Crl.M.C.No.214 of 2007 2 filed by the petitioner afresh and to direct release of the vehicle to the registered owner on appropriate conditions.