IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2048 of 2008()
1. SURENDRAN, S/O.KESAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :18/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2048 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim
under Section 451 Cr.P.C for interim release of a vehicle jeep, KL-
12 B 4342 to him, passed by the learned CJM, Wyanad.
2. The vehicle was seized by the Forest officials on the
allegation that the petitioner, the registered owner of the said
vehicle, had trespassed into the forest in that vehicle carrying with
him armed unlicensed gun as also explosives. The vehicle was
produced before the learned CJM. An application was filed for
interim release of the said vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
3. A contention was raised that the vehicle has already
become property of the Government under Section 39(1) (d) of the
Wild Life Protection Act and that, consequently, there can be no
question of interim release of the vehicle to the petitioner, the
vehicle having already become Government property.
4. The attention of the learned Magistrate was drawn to the
decision in State of M.P. & others V. Madhukar Rao [2008 (1)
Crl.M.C. No. 2048 OF 2008
2
SLT 691] and the learned CJM relying on paragraph 11 of the said
decision, came to the conclusion that the court has got
jurisdictional competence to issue appropriate directions for
release under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The learned CJM, however,
came to the conclusion that the petitioner in this case does not
deserve to be granted interim custody of the vehicle considering
the nature of the alleged crime and the circumstance that the
vehicle with the petitioner inside the same possessing an
unlicensed gun and explosives were found inside and seized from
the forest.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent. He has valid contentions to advance and
that, at any rate, it may not now be assumed really that the vehicle
is liable to be confiscated or has become property of the
Government under Section 39. Counsel wants this Court to take
note of the decision in Sundar Bai Ambalal Desai v. State of
Gurajat [2003 SC 638] which cautions the courts of the dangers
of leaving valuable property in the custody of the court or the
Crl.M.C. No. 2048 OF 2008
3
officers, exposed to sun and rain and liable to damage and
destruction.
6. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am
satisfied, notwithstanding by the opposition by the learned Public
Prosecutor that subject to appropriate conditions the vehicle can
be released to the petitioner. I take note of the reality that some
time shall be taken for disposal of the case by the learned
Magistrate and it is not necessary to allow the vehicle to remain
exposed to sun and rain during the said interregnum period.
7. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, allowed. The
vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms
and conditions:
1. Petitioner shall produce before the learned
Magistrate all necessary documents to show that he is the
owner entitled for the possession of the same.
2. The petitioner shall execute a bond for the value of
the vehicle to be determined by the learned Magistrate.
3. The petitioner shall produce bank guarantee or
make cash deposit of the value of the vehicle as determined
by the learned Magistrate.
Crl.M.C. No. 2048 OF 2008
4
4. In the bond to be executed by the petitioner, the
petitioner shall undertake that the vehicle shall not be used
for commission of any offences while it is in his possession
and also that he shall keep the vehicle in the same condition
in which it is handed over to him till it is produced before
Court as and when directed.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
ttb
Crl.M.C. No. 2048 OF 2008
5
Crl.M.C. No. 2048 OF 2008
6