NJANADURAI PAKKIANADAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of a jeep. That vehicle is allegedly involved in the transportation of animal meat in violation of the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle in his favour. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the original documents. The petitioner preferred a revision. The learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the name of the owner in the photostat copy of the R.C. and photostat copy of Insurance certificate of the vehicle do not exactly tally.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the courts have not really considered the crucial question whether the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in the proper perspective. The petitioner has the name Njanadurai and that word is differently spelt by persons. The letters 'n' and 'j' have created all the confusion. The petitioner is willing to produce all the documents before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate may be directed to consider the original documents to be produced by the petitioner and dispose of Crl.M.P. 1765 of 2006 again, it is submitted.

(3.) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that such a direction can certainly be issued, though I do not find sufficient justification for the failure of the petitioner to produce the original documents before the learned Magistrate at the first instance.