Whether a court can release vehicle on Supratnama to power of attorney holder of owner of vehicle?

Annexure-II power of attorney executed by Daisy, claiming to be the registered owner of the Crmc 3317/09 2

vehicle KL.05.V.2601 seized in crime No.149/2001 of Peruvanthanam police station, appointing petitioner, her husband as her power of attorney shows that petitioner, power of attorney holder was authorised by his wife to file an application and take the vehicle from court on her behalf. Hence dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioner has no authority to execute the bond is unsustainable.

Kerala High Court

P.V.Joy, S/O.Varkey vs State Of Kerala Rep.By on 30 October, 2009

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

C.M.P.2891/2009 in crime No.149/2009 of Peruvanthanam police station was filed by the petitioner before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Peermedu under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for getting interim custody of goods vehicle KL-5-2601 seized by the police in the said case and produced before the learned Magistrate, on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transporting ten pieces of teak wood which belong to the Government. By Annexure-I order the petition was dismissed for the reason that investigation is not completed and power of attorney does not enable the petitioner to get release of the vehicle. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-I order and for a direction to grant interim custody of the vehicle.

2. Annexure-II power of attorney executed by Daisy, claiming to be the registered owner of the Crmc 3317/09 2

vehicle KL.05.V.2601 seized in crime No.149/2001 of Peruvanthanam police station, appointing petitioner, her husband as her power of attorney shows that petitioner, power of attorney holder was authorised by his wife to file an application and take the vehicle from court on her behalf. Hence dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioner has no authority to execute the bond is unsustainable.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is over and a final report is filed alleging offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and there is no case that any offence under the Forest Act was committed. In such circumstances, petitioner is entitled to get interim custody from the learned Magistrate on establishing that his wife, who executed power of attorney is the registered owner of the vehicle.

Petition is allowed. Annexure-I order is quashed. Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Peermade is directed to consider C.M.P.2891/2009 afresh and pass fresh order in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

uj.