IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1893 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.G.LATHAKUMARI, D/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :20/10/2008
O R D E R
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P. NO.1893 OF 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008
O R D E R
The State has filed the revision challenging the order
passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla in
Crl.M.P.8070 of 2007 in Crime 315 of 2007 wherein a petition
filed by first respondent under section 457 of Code of Criminal
Procedure for custody of lorry KL3-Q 7265 involved in
transportation of river sand in contravention to the provisions of
Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of
Sand Act was allowed and interim custody was given on
executing the bond for Rs.20,000/- with two solvent sureties.
The order is challenged in this revision filed under section 397
read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending
that section 457 of Cr.P.C. should not have been invoked by the
Court as no report was filed under section 102 of Cr.P.C.
2. Though notice was served on first respondent, she did
not appear.
3. The argument of the learned public prosecutor is that
CRRP 1893/08 2
even if the learned Magistrate is competent to grant interim
custody of the vehicle under section 457 of Cr.P.C. , the learned
Magistrate should have imposed necessary conditions as done
by this Court in Ahammed Kutty v. State of Kerala (2008 (1)
KLT 1068).
4. This Court has considered the effect of non filing of a
report as provided under section 102 of Cr.P.C. in a case where
the vehicle was seized under the provisions of Protection of
River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. It
was held that in the absence of any specific provision under the
Special Act, provisions under sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
pertaining to interim custody of the properties seized under
Special Laws will have their full operation and if the seizing
officer is a revenue official, he shall hand over it to the police
who has a corresponding duty to register the crime and report
the seizure to the Magistrate and even if no report is filed, the
Magistrate is competent to grant interim custody as provided
under section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore the
order granting interim custody cannot be challenged.
5. There is force in the submission of the learned
CRRP 1893/08 3
Prosecutor that necessary conditions were not imposed by the
learned Magistrate. The impugned order is therefore quashed.
Learned Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate order in
Crl.M.P.8070 of 2007 imposing conditions, in the light of the
directions given by this Court in Ahammed Kutty’s case (supra).
Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Okb/-