IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2268 of 2008()
1. SHYLAJA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :30/10/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
Crl.R.P. NO.2268 OF 2008
===========================
Dated this the 30th day of October,2008
ORDER
As per the order passed in C.M.P.776/2008 filed
under section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure
petitioner deposited Rs.35,000/- before Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Pattambi. The lorry KLO/9-
T.3087 was seized by the Police for transporting
river sand illegally. Crime No.65/2008 of Thrithala
Police Station was registered for the offence
punishable under section 12 read with section 20 of
Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of
Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Subsequently the
District Collector passed an order of
confiscation. According to petitioner, he remitted
Rs.21,000/- as directed by the District Collector
and he is entitled to get back the amount deposited
before the court as directed by the order in
C.M.P.776/2008. He filed C.M.P.2023/2008 for the
above purpose. Learned Magistrate dismissed the
CRRP 2268/2008 2
application holding that a final report is yet to
be filed and before disposing the case it cannot
be granted. Revision is filed challenging that
order.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. The order in C.M.P.776/2008 was passed
under section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure
granting interim custody of the vehicle. Learned
Magistrate was justified in holding that without a
final report submitted by the Police as provided
under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
the amount deposited by the petitioner in court
pursuant to the order passed under section 451 of
Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be allowed to be
withdrawn. Learned counsel submitted that a final
report was submitted. Learned counsel also
submitted that the order shows that petition could
be allowed only after disposal of the case. It is
pointed out that when confiscation order was passed
by the District Collector, there is no necessity
CRRP 2268/2008 3
for retaining the vehicle and therefore a final
order could be passed. If a final report is filed
by the police under section 173 of Code of Criminal
Procedure learned Magistrate can pass an order
allowing the petitioner to withdraw the amount
deposited, provided the vehicle is not necessary
for the trial of the case. Petitioner is at
liberty to file a fresh application before the
Magistrate. If a final report is filed Magistrate
is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance
with law.
Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006