High Court Kerala High Court

Sabu.N.S. vs State Of Kerala on 18 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sabu.N.S. vs State Of Kerala on 18 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3918 of 2009()


1. SABU.N.S. S/O. GEORGE, NEDUMKALLEL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :18/12/2009

 O R D E R
          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

           ------------------------------------------
            Crl.M.C.NO.3918 OF 2009
           ------------------------------------------
            Dated 18th December 2009


                         O R D E R

Jeep No.KL-13-C/7453 was seized in

O.R.19/2009 of Kottiyoor Forest Range

Office registered for the offences under

Sections 2(1b), 20,(36), 9,39(1)(d), 50 and

51 of Wild Life Protection Act. Petitioner

filed C.M.P.3937/2009 for interim custody

of the vehicle under Section 451 of Code of

Criminal Procedure. By Annexure-A4 order

learned Magistrate dismissed the petition

on the ground that when Section 39(d)

provides for confiscation, learned

Magistrate cannot grant interim custody of

the vehicle. Petition is filed under

Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure

to quash Annexure-A4 order and to grant

Crmc 3918/09
2

interim custody of the vehicle.

2. Learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor

were heard.

3. Under Section 39 of Wild Life

Protection Act, every vehicle used for

committing an offence and has been seized

under the provisions of the Act shall be the

property of the Government. Hence unless it

is established that the vehicle was used for

committing the offence, the vehicle cannot

be treated as that of the government. In

such circumstances, learned Magistrate was

not justified in holding that in view of

Section 39 of the Act interim custody cannot

be granted. As held by this court in

Mathew v. Range Officer (2004 Crl.L.J 3961)

under Section 451 of Code of Criminal

Crmc 3918/09
3

Procedure, Magistrate is competent to grant

interim custody of the vehicle.

4. In such circumstances, Annexure-

A4 order is quashed. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Kuthuparamba is directed to re-

consider C.M.P.3937/2009 and if petitioner

is the registered owner as he is entitled to

get interim custody, to grant interim

custody on sufficient conditions.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.