Kunnummal Thodi Alavikutty vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 24 January, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 263 of 2008()


1. KUNNUMMAL THODI ALAVIKUTTY, S/O.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR,

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

4. KAVANUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.MANHU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :24/01/2008

 O R D E R
                              V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                      Crl.M.C. No. 263 of 2008
                   = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                          Dated: 24-1-2008

                                 ORDER

Petitioner who is the owner of a vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-

10-Z-9897, seeks interim custody of the same. The vehicle was

seized by the 2nd respondent alleging that sand was illegally

transported in the vehicle in contravention of the provisions of the

Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand

Act, 2001 (the Act” for short). The petitioner approached the J.F.C.M.

Manjeri for interim custody of the vehicle which was seized by the 2nd

respondent but his request for interim custody was declined by the

Magistrate holding that since the vehicle was not produced before

Court and no report was forwarded under Sec. 102 (3) Cr.P.C. by any

police officer, the application for interim custody filed under Sec. 457

Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. Hence this Petition under Sec. 482

Cr.P.C.

2. Even in cases where the seized vehicle is not produced

before the Magistrate nor is the seizure reported to the Magistrate, the

application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. by the person aggrieved can be

treated as a report of seizure. In as much as this Court has granted

interim custody of vehicles seized under the provisions of the said Act,

I see no reason why this vehicle also should not be released on

interim custody, particularly in the light of the decision reported in

CRL. M.C. No. 263/2008 : 2 :

AIR 2003 SC 638 – Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of

Gujrat. Accordingly, the Mini lorry in question shall be released to

the petitioner on interim custody on his depositing either a cash

security of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) or

furnishing bank guarantee for the said amount and on his executing

a bond for Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) with

two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the

J.F.C.M., Manjeri without insisting on solvency certificate and subject

to the following conditions.

i) The petitioner shall keep the mini lorry in the same
condition in which it is released to the petitioner.

ii) The petitioner shall not transfer the mini lorry and its
accessories wholly or in part to any person.

iii) The petitioner shall not permit the mini lorry bearing
Reg. No.KL-10-Z-9897, to be used for any illicit
purpose

iv) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before court as
and when required by the Magistrate.

This order shall be subject to any order for confiscation to be

passed under the provisions of the Act.

V. RAMKUMAR,
(JUDGE)

rv

CRL. M.C. No. 263/2008 : 3 :