IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1906 of 2010()
1. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.ENIKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :07/02/2011
O R D E R
J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. &
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.A. No. 1906 OF 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 7th day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
J. Chelameswar, C.J.
Aggrieved by judgment dated 29th September, 2010 the unsuccessful
petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 29490 of 2010 has preferred this appeal.
2. The petitioner is the registered owner of vehicle bearing No. KL
10 C 9411, a Tata Mini Lorry. An FIR No. 143/2010 dated 29.03.2010 was
registered in the Kalapakanchery Police Station in Malappuram District
under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala
Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act read
with Sections 132 and 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The substance of the
FIR is that, the vehicle was found proceeding at a very high speed at
around 6.30 A.M. on 29.03.2010. When the S.I. of Police of the above
mentioned police station along with two other constables, who were on
patrol duty, tried to stop the vehicle, the driver did not obey the command
of the police. Eventually the vehicle was located at the residence of the
appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle. The same was seized under
mahazar.
W.A No. 1906 of 2010
:2:
3. The writ petition is filed praying that the F.I.R. be quashed. The
prayers in the writ petition is as follows:
(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to quash the entire prosecution and other
proceedings in Exhibit P1 FIR and to order release of the vehicle to
the petitioner forthwith.
(ii) To grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances
of the case.
4. The appellant seeks such a prayer on the ground that there was
not even a pinch of river sand in the vehicle, when the vehicle was seized.
By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the
writ petition. Hence the appeal.
5. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment. The assertion
of the appellant that there was not even a pinch of river sand in the vehicle
at the time of seizure of the vehicle does not necessarily mean that the
vehicle was not carrying the river sand on 29.03.2010 at about 6.30 A.M.
The allegation that the driver of the vehicle did not stop the vehicle in spite
of being called upon to stop by the police coupled with the allegation that
the vehicle was involved in illegal transportation of river sand prima facie
requires the matter to be adjudicated upon evidence in appropriate trial in
accordance with law. In our opinion, the learned Judge rightly dismissed
W.A No. 1906 of 2010
:3:
the writ petition. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment under
appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd