High Court Kerala High Court

Joy vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Joy vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 349 of 2008()


1. JOY, AGED 45 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :13/02/2008

 O R D E R
                                V. RAMKUMAR , J.

                 ==========================

                            Crl.R.P. No. 349 of 2008

                 ==========================

                 Dated this the 13th  day of February, 2008.


                                     ORDER

The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No. 408/2006 of

West Police Station, Thrissur for an offence punishable under Clause 5

(a) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 r/w Section 3 of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955, challenges the order dated 16.01.2008 passed

by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur dismissing the

petitioner’s application filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C for interim

custody of the lorry bearing registration No. KL 8B 8560 of which the

petitioner claims to be registered owner.

2. The lorry in question was seized by the Town West Police on

26.10.2006 for allegedly transporting rationed articles. The learned

Magistrate did not entertain the petition for the reason that the

confiscation proceedings under Section 6(a) of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 have been initiated by the District Collector,

Thrissur.

3. It is admitted that neither the act nor the rules fix a time limit

for the completion of the confiscation proceedings by the District

Collector. The decision of the Apex Court in AIR 2003 SC 638

-Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat mandates that as far as

CRL.R.P.NO. 349/2008 : 2:

possible the interim custody of such vehicles and other properties

should be ordered. Even though more than a year has elapsed after

the seizure of the lorry in question, the petitioner contends that he has

not been served with any notice in the confiscation proceedings stated

to have been initiated by the Collector. If after the conclusion of the

proceedings in crime No. 408/2006 it is ultimately found that the

petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged, he will suffer

irreparable loss on account of the exposure of the lorry to the ambient

weather. Hence, it is necessary that a time limit has to be fixed for

the finalisation of the confiscation proceedings. Accordingly, if the

confiscation proceedings are not finalised by the District Collector,

Thrissur within three months of date of receipt of a copy of this order,

the District Collector shall release the vehicle on interim custody on an

application filed by the petitioner. The release shall be on such terms

as he may deem fit.

This Crl. R.P is disposed of as above.

Hand over a copy of this order to both sides.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv

CRL.R.P.NO. 349/2008 : 3: