IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4317 of 2008()
1. K.E.MATHEW, S/O.K.M.EAPPEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/12/2008
O R D E R
R BASANT, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Crl.M.C.4317 OF 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 04th day of December, 2008
O R D E R
Petitioner claims to be the owner of a vehicle which was
allegedly involved in the commission of offences under the Kerala
Forest Act and Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of
Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The petitioner`s application for release
of the vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate by the
impugned order. He has come to this court with a prayer to invoke
the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to
quash the order and to direct release of the vehicle to him.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the
application.
3. Reference to the vital facts may be relevant and
crucial. Petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle. One
Mathew Scaria is the registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle
was earlier involved in an offence u/s Kerala Protection of River
Banks and Regulation of Sand Act and the vehicle was ordered to be
released to the registered owner in OR 01/08 subject to the
conditions of the bond which he had executed along with sureties.
The vehicle was released to the registered owner. It is submitted at
the Bar that the conditions imposed, included the condition that the
registered owner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by
the court and that he should not use the vehicle for commission of
any crime.
3. Be that as it may, as the vehicle was involved in yet
another crime OR 05/08 i.e. the instant one it was seized on
28.02.08, it is alleged that the registered owner of the vehicle, to
whom the vehicle was released by the court, was himself making use
of the vehicle to commit the offence on 28.02.08
4. The vehicle was seized. Long later the petitioner had
come before the court with a prayer that the vehicle may be released
to him. How did he acquire rights over the vehicle from the
registered owner? Petitioner contends that as per annexure A1 he
has acquired rights over the vehicle from the registered owner.
4. The learned Magistrate was evidently not satisfied with
the explanation offered. The registered owner was not expected to
part with possession of the vehicle. He was not expected to use the
vehicle for commission of any offence. On 28.02.08 allegedly he was
found to make use of the vehicle illegally, contrary to the the terms of
the bond executed by him. It is such registered owner who
contended later through the petitioner that vehicle had been
transferred to the petitioner on 21.02.08 – 7 days prior to the date of
commission of the alleged offence.
5. I find merit in the contention of the learned Public
Prosecutor that the petitioner is only a name lender to the registered
owner to justify the claim for release of the vehicle now. The learned
Public Prosecutor further submits that proceedings u/s 51A of Forest
Act are already initiated and according to the learned Public
Prosecutor the registered owner has not appeared before the
authority u/s 61 A of Kerala Forest Act. The learned Public
Prosecutor submits that expeditious steps are being taken to
complete the proceeding u/s 61 A Kerala Forest Act.
6. In these circumstances, the impugned order does not
warrant any interference by invocation of the extra ordinary inherent
jurisdiction available u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner or the
registered owner should certainly approach the authority under
Section 61 A Kerala Forest Act
7. With the above observations this Criminal MC is
dismissed. Needless to say authority u/s 61 A of the Kerala Forest
Act shall ensure that the proceedings is completed as expeditiously
as possible.
(R BASANT, JUDGE)
KMD