IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3283 of 2008()
1. NAFEESA, W/O. MAMMU, KALAKAPPARA HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :10/11/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
CRL.R.P.NO. 3283 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner is challenging the order passed by Judicial First
Class Magistrate-I, Perinthalmanna, dismissing CMP 2712 of
2008 in Crime No. 365 of 2008 of Kulathoor Police Station
refusing to grant interim custody of the vehicle. Case of
petitioner is that he is the owner in possession of KL03/B 3684
lorry which was seized by S.I of Kulathoor police station on
30.8.2008 at about 12.30 pm and the vehicle was not
transporting river sand as alleged and therefore the seizure is
illegal and petitioner is entitled to get interim custody of the
vehicle under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure as the
vehicle, if allowed to be detained, will get damaged and
petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition. Learned
Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the
vehicle was involved in a similar crime earlier and was released
to petitioner under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure
and again the vehicle was used for committing the same offence
and therefore it cannot be released to the petitioner. The
argument of learned counsel is that when the vehicle was seized
CRRP 3283/2008 2
by the police, it did not contain any river sand as alleged and
therefore there was no violation of the condition undertaken by
the petitioner and hence the dismissal of the application is not
sustainable.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the seizure
mahazar prepared by S.I of Police on 30.8.2008, the date when it
was seized. Being a contemporaneous record it is very relevant.
As rightly found by learned Magistrate, seizure mahazar
establishes that vehicle was used for transporting river sand.
Petitioner has no case that he was having any license or
authorisation to transport river sand at that time. When interim
custody of the vehicle was earlier entrusted to revision petitioner
and he used the same vehicle for committing the same unlawful
act of transporting river sand illegally, learned Magistrate was
justified in dismissing the application. I find no reason to
interfere with that finding.
Revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is entitled to take
all defences at the time of trial.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-