IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3641 of 2008()
1. MR.SREEJESH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :21/11/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
Crl.R.P. NO.3641 OF 2008
===========================
Dated this the 21st day of November,2008
ORDER
Revision petitioner is challenging the order
dismissing his application filed under section 457
of Code of Criminal Procedure. He filed that
application before Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Chalakudy for interim custody of Lorry bearing
No.KER-5209 seized by Mala Police in Crime
No.475/2008 on 22.10.2008 for illegal
transportation of river sand without permit. Case
of the revision petitioner is that he is the
registered owner in possession of the vehicle and
vehicle was not involved in any illegal
transportation of river sand and if the vehicle is
allowed to be kept in the open premises, there is
every possibility of causing damage to the vehicle
and In such circumstance, the vehicle is to be
released to the petitioner on imposing any
conditions. Learned Magistrate, based on the
CRRP 3641/2008 2
report submitted by the Station House Officer, Mala
Police Station to the effect that the very same
vehicle was earlier seized on 11.10.2008 in Crime
No.459/2008 for illegal transportation of river
sand and was granted interim custody under section
457 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner and again he used the
same for illegal transportation of river sand and
therefore petitioner cannot be granted interim
custody of the vehicle.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. The argument of the learned counsel is that
when the lorry was taken delivery pursuant to the
order for interim custody, in Crime 459/2008 only
on 21.10.2008, it is not at all probable that on
the very next day the vehicle would be used for
illegal transportation of river sand and therefore
the seizure itself was illegal. It was also argued
that as is clear from the seizure mahazar, the
seizure was not in the presence of any independent
witness and in violation of the privisions of
Section 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure and
CRRP 3641/2008 3
therefore the vehicle is to be granted on interim
custody to the revision petitioner. Learned
counsel also submitted that the petitioner is
prepared to abide by any conditions.
4. When the very same vehicle was granted
earlier on interim custody under section 457 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to the revision
petitioner on specific condition that he shall not
use it for illegal transportation of river sand
and the vehicle was subsequently seized by the
police while transporting river sand illegally.
On the facts and circumstances of the case,learned
Magistrate was justified in not granting interim
custody of the vehicle to the revision petitioner
as the condition undertaken by the revision
petitioner was violated. Hence he is not entitled
to get interim custody. There is no illegality in
the order.
Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
CRRP 3641/2008 4
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).NO. /06
---------------------
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006