IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2531 of 2009()
1. KARUNAKARAN, S/O.ARAMUGHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :18/08/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.2531 of 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this 18th day of August 2009
ORDER
This revision arises from the order dated 30-07-2009 on
C.M.P.No.1920 of 2009 in crime No.207 of 2009 of Mukkom Police
station. A mini lorry of which petitioner is the registered owner was
seized by the Mukkom Police while allegedly involving in illicit
transportation of sand. Police registered crime No.207 of 2009 for
offence punishable under section 4(1A) r/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act (for short, “the Act”). It appears
that a report regarding seizure given to the District Collector
concerned, as well. Petitioner moved C.M.P.No.1920 of 2009 in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class No-2, Thamarassery
for release of the vehicle pending disposal of the case under section
457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Learned
magistrate placed reliance on the decision in Shoukathali V.
Tahasildar (2009 (1) KLT 640) and dismissed the application since
according to the learned magistrate the proper authority to consider
release of the vehicle is the District Collector. That order is under
challenge in this revision. Learned counsel for petitioner contended
that under the provisions of the Act, the District Collector is not the
authority to order confiscation and power for confiscation is conferred
on the court trying the offender. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted
Crl.R.P.No.2531 of 2009 2
that case is registered only under the provision of that Act.
2. The decision relied on by learned magistrate referred to
the power of confiscation of vehicles involved in violation of the
provisions of Protection of River Banks and Regulation and Removal of
Sand Act 2001 (Kerala) where the District Collector is the authority
competent to order confiscation. It is in that situation that it was held
that the court should not deal application for release of vehicles. In
this case, the Kerala Act has no application and what is involved is the
provisions of the Central Act. Section 21(4A) of the Act states that the
vehicle etc seized under subsection (4) of that section shall be liable
for confiscation by an order of the court competent to take cognizance
of the offence under subsection (1) and shall be disposed of in
accordance with the directions of such court. Hence the court below
was not correct in holding that the authority to deal with confiscation is
the District Collector. As the authority competent to order confiscation
is the court concerned, it was well within the power of that court to
grant interim custody of the vehicle under section 457 of the Code.
3. It is not shown that the vehicle seized is involved in any
other case. It is also not disputed that petitioner is its registered
owner. There is no reason why the vehicle should be kept idle and
spoiled till the case is disposed of. In the circumstances, I am inclined
to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner but subject to
conditions.
Crl.R.P.No.2531 of 2009 3
Resultantly this revision is allowed. The order under challenge is
set aside and C.M.P.No.1920 of 2009 will stand allowed. Interim
custody of the vehicle shall be given to the petitioner on his executing
bond for Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) with
two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the
court below and subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by learned
magistrate during the pendency or at the time of disposal of the
case as the case may be.
2. Petitioner shall not transfer or otherwise dispose of the vehicle
during the period the bond remained in force and until learned
magistrate issued direction regarding the final disposal of the
vehicle.
3. It is directed that petitioner shall use the vehicle only in accordance
with a valid permit and other vehicular documents issued by the
competent authority. It is directed that if the vehicle is used for any
unlawful purpose whatsoever, the bond executed by the petitioner
shall be canceled.
It is for learned magistrate to issue direction regarding the final
disposal of the vehicle and to cause production of the vehicle.
THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE
Sbna/