IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2045 of 2008()
1. MARYKUTTY, W/O. YESUDAS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.RAJA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :05/06/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2045 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle which has been
seized by the forest officials for its alleged involvement and
commission of offences under the Kerala Forest Act. The crux of
the allegations is that to facilitate removal of sand from river
passing through the forest, a way was cut upon through the
forest and the vehicle was taken into the forest for removal of
river sand. The vehicle was seized and produced before the
learned Magistrate. The petitioner filed an application to get
release of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned
order rejected the application on the ground that the vehicle was
earlier involved in a similar offence and that the same was
released to the petitioner on condition that the vehicle will not
be used for commission of any similar offence. It is, in these
circumstances, that the vehicle was seized by the forest officials.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the allegations raised against the petitioner now are totally
unjustifiable and that in any view of the matter, the vehicle may
not be exposed to sun and rain until the validity of the
allegations is considered on merits.
Crl.M.C.No.2045/08 2
3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The
learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned
Public Prosecutor finally submits that if at all the vehicle be
released to the petitioner, it must be on appropriate and strict
conditions. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am
persuaded to agree that the vehicle need not be exposed to sun and
rain and consequent damage and deterioration. The decision in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003 SC 638]
cautioned the court against unnecessarily retaining vehicles in the
custody of the court. On the facts revealed in the case, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no possibility of any
proceedings for confiscation under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest
Act. The learned Public Prosecutor does not accept that; but fairly
submits that no action under Section 61A has so far been taken.
4. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that subject to
appropriate terms and conditions, the vehicle can be released to the
petitioner.
5. In the result,
i) This Crl.M.C is allowed.
Crl.M.C.No.2045/08 3
ii) The vehicle in question, that is KL-02 V 3897 Pick up van
shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and
conditions:
a) He shall produce all documents to show that he is the
owner entitled to possession of the vehicle.
b) The petitioner shall execute a bond for an amount equal
to the value of the vehicle and shall produce bank guarantee for the
value of the vehicle to be determined by the learned Magistrate on
the basis of the materials placed before the learned Magistrate.
c) The petitioner shall not use the vehicle for commission of
any offence while the same is in his custody and shall keep the same
in the same condition in which it is handed over to him. He shall
produce the same as and when directed before the court or any
other authority as directed by the court.
d) The release of the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner
on the strength of this order will not in any way absolve the
petitioner from the liability for forfeiture of bond or violation of
conditions of the bond earlier executed by him.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.2045/08 4
Crl.M.C.No.2045/08 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007