IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3723 of 2008()
1. ASHKAR ALI, S/O. MUHAMMED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :13/10/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 3723 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner’s vehicle, lorry No.KL 2-M 5016 was allegedly
involved in the commission of an offence under the Kerala
Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act,
2001. A crime was registered. The vehicle was seized. Seizure
was reported to the learned Magistrate. Investigation is now
complete. Final report has already been filed. Seizure was
effected on 15.08.08. The vehicle is now continuing in the custody
of the court. Petitioner applied to the learned Magistrate for
release of the vehicle in his favour. That application was rejected
by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the vehicle is
involved in one earlier similar incident. Accordingly, the learned
Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned order, rejecting the
claim for release.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. Allegations raised are false. At
any rate the petitioner is willing to abide by any appropriate
conditions. Imbibing the spirit of the decision in Sundarbai
Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [SC 2003(2) KLT 1089],
Crl.M.C. No. 3723 OF 2008
-:2:-
the vehicle may not be compelled to remain in the custody of the
authorities, exposing the same to unnecessary damage and
deterioration. Petitioner shall undertake not to use the vehicle for
commission of any offence under the Act. Appropriate conditions
may be imposed and vehicle may be released to the petitioner, it
is submitted.
3. Learned Prosecutor only submits that appropriate
conditions may be imposed. The interest of the State is only to
ensure that the vehicle is not used for repetition of commission of
any such offences.
Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am persuaded to
agree that direction can be issued to release the vehicle to the
petitioner. In coming to the conclusion, I take note of the decision
in Sundarbai Ambalal Desai(supra), and the need for anxiety
to avoid unnecessary damage and deterioration caused to the
vehicle while under custody of courts and authorities. Appropriate
conditions can of course be imposed.
In the result:
a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Crl.M.C. No. 3723 OF 2008
-:3:-
b) The impugned order is set aside. Vehicle shall be
released to the petitioner on the following terms:
i) Petitioner shall produce before the learned
Magistrate all the documents to show that he
is the owner of the vehicle entitled to
possession of the vehicle.
ii) He shall execute a bond for an amount
equal to the value of the vehicle to be fixed by
the learned Magistrate in his discretion with
two solvent sureties for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. In such
bond, he shall specifically undertake not to
use the vehicle for commission of any offence
under the Kerala Protection of River Banks &
Regulation of Removal of Sand Act while the
same is in his possession.
iii) The petitioner shall make a cash deposit of
Rs.35,000/- before the learned Magistrate
which amount shall be released to the
petitioner on production of satisfactory proof
before the learned Magistrate that
proceedings for confiscation before the
revenue authorities in respect of both cases,
i.e., Crime No.328/08 of Cheruthuruthy Police
Crl.M.C. No. 3723 OF 2008
-:4:-
Station and Crime No.79/08 also before the
Cheruthuruthy Police Station, are over and
amounts as directed have been deposited.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
ttb
Crl.M.C. No. 3723 OF 2008
-:5:-
Crl.M.C. No. 3723 OF 2008
-:6:-