IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4620 of 2010()
1. HINEESH,AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.LOHITHAKSHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RANGE OFFICER,FOREST RANGE OFFICE,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :24/11/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
---------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.4620 OF 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated 24th November, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner filed C.M.P.2206/2009
before Judicial First Class Magistrate-III,
Thrissur under Section 451 of Code of
Criminal Procedure for interim custody of
the vehicle No.KL-45.B.9479 contending that
he is the registered owner of the vehicle.
By Annexure-2 order learned Magistrate
dismissed the petition holding that as the
vehicle is seized for the offence under
the Wild Life Protection Act, as provided
under Section 39(d), interim custody cannot
be granted. Petitioner thereafter filed
C.M.P.1176/2010 for the same relief. By
Annexure-3 order petition was dismissed on
the ground that if that petition is to be
Crmc 4620/10
2
allowed Annexure-2 order is to be reviewed.
Petitioner challenged that order before
Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.R.P.103/2010.
Learned Sessions Judge finding that as
Annexure-2 order stands learned Magistrate
could not have allowed the subsequent
application, dismissed the revision finding
that there is no illegality. Petition is filed
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
to quash Annexures-A2 to A4 orders.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner was heard.
3. I find no illegality to quash either
Annexure-3 or Annexure-4 order. But Annexure-2
order is apparently illegal. Learned
Magistrate did not consider the claim of the
petitioner, but rejected the claim on the
ground that as provided under Section 39(d) of
Crmc 4620/10
3
Wild Life Protection Act, application will not
lie. Learned Magistrate failed to take note
of the fact that property would vest with the
Government only on confiscation. Unfortunately
decision of this Court in Mathew v. Range
Officer (2004 (2) KLT 865) was not brought to
the notice of the learned Magistrate.
Petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 order
is quashed. C.M.P.2206/2009 on the file of
Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III,
Thrissur is remanded to Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court-III, Thrissur for fresh
disposal in accordance with law.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.