IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 659 of 2007()
1. MOHAMMED SHIHAB.P.K, S/O KUNHIPOKKU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/03/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO. 659 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by Condition No.2 imposed
on him when a vehicle belonging to him was directed to be
released to him. The said vehicle is allegedly involved in
illicit transportation of river sand. By the said condition, the
learned Magistrate directed that the petitioner must deposit
an amount of Rs.25,000/- before claiming release of the
vehicle.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the said condition is absolutely unnecessary and unjustified.
The petitioner has been directed already to execute a bond
for Rs.1 lakh with two solvent sureties. That condition
sufficiently protects the interests of the State. The petitioner
is poor and indigent. He is unable to raise the amount of
Rs.25,000/- to make cash deposit. In these circumstances, the
petitioner has been unable to take advantage of the order
dated 12/2/07. The vehicle is exposed to sun and rain
CRL.M.C.NO. 659 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
unnecessarily. It is suffering damage and deterioration. The
learned counsel wants this Court to take note of the fact that the
petitioner’s vehicle is even allegedly not involved earlier in any
other similar crime. In support of this contention, he relies on
the objections filed by the revenue official to his application for
release of the vehicle. Admittedly, no order has been passed by
the District Collector under the relevant Rule 27 of the
Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand
Rules, 2002. The petitioner is willing to undertake to pay the
amount which may be legally found to be due and payable from
him by the District Collector under Rule 27 of the Rules. In
these circumstances, the unfortunate consequence of the vehicle
deteriorating in custody of the officials may be avoided. The
Supreme Court decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v.
State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) which reveals the anxiety
of the system to avoid such unnecessary damage and
deterioration of the properties involved in criminal cases is also
brought to my notice by the learned counsel.
3. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied
that it is not necessary to insist on imposition of the condition of
cash deposit of Rs.25,000/-. Condition No.1 imposed shall
CRL.M.C.NO. 659 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
adequately take care of the situation. The petitioner must, in
the bond to be executed, undertake before the learned
Magistrate that he shall, subject to the avenues of challenge
which are available to him, deposit the amount which may be
payable by him as per the order of the District Collector. The
bond to be executed shall secure such amount also.
4. In these circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed to the
above extent. Condition No.2 shall stand deleted. In the bond
to be executed, the petitioner shall undertake that the amounts
which may be found due and payable in accordance with law
under Rule 27 of the Rules shall be paid by him to the District
Collector as and when directed.
Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge