AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Ubaid, J.—The petitioner herein is the registered owner of the autorickshaw No.KL-60-E-8110. When the Excise Range Officer found the petitioner transporting 5 liters of Indian made foreign liquor in the said autorickshaw, he arrested the petitioner and seized the properties including the vehicle. An application filed by him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg u/s 451 Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the autorickshaw was allowed by the learned Magistrate on certain conditions including a direction to deposit an amount of 1,15,000/-. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said condition, and now he wants an order from this Court quashing the said direction u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
On hearing both sides, I find the necessity of some modification in the impugned direction. There is already a direction to execute bond for 1,15,000/-, and the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner to produce the vehicle as and when directed by the confiscation authority. It is submitted that the petitioner is an autorickshaw driver, and he is not in a position to deposit the amount of 1,15,000/-. When there is a direction to execute bond and also to produce the vehicle as and when required, it will suffice that a reasonable amount is ordered to be deposited. This Court is inclined to make a further direction that the petitioner shall keep the vehicle in his safe custody without being sold, assigned or otherwise handed over to anybody, pending the proceedings.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The impugned condition No.2 imposed by the court below as per the order dated 8.4.2014 in C.M.P No.2533/2014 will stand modified to the effect that an amount of 30,000/- shall be deposited in the court below. There will be a further direction to the petitioner that the vehicle shall be kept in his safe custody without being sold, assigned or otherwise handed over to anybody, pending the confiscation proceedings.