Muneer K. vs The State of Kerala

K. Ramakrishnan, J.—The petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 9835/14 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram is the revision petitioner herein.

The petitioner''s vehicle with No. KL-10AB-5408 was seized by Vazhakkad police when it was alleged to have used for illegal transport of river sand and a crime was registered as Crime No. 432/14 of Vazhakkad Police Station under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter called ''the Act''). The petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle, filed Crl. M.P. No. 9835/14 for interim custody of the vehicle under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called ''the Code'') and the learned magistrate allowed interim custody on deposit of Rs. 63,000/- and producing bank guarantee of Rs. 1,37,000/- besides other conditions and these two conditions are being challenged by the petitioner by filing the above revision.

Considering the scope of challenge, this court felt that this can be admitted and disposed of today itself after hearing the Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. So, it is admitted and heard both sides.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below has not considered decision laid down in Aboobacker T.H. Vs. State of Kerala, on this aspect. So, the order passed by the court below is illegal.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that no illegality has been committed by the court below in passing the order.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner''s Lorry with No. KL-10AB-5408 was seized by Vazhakkad Police when it was said to have involved in illegal transportation of river sand and on that basis, a case was registered as Crime No. 432/14 under Section 20 and 21 of the said Act. The petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle, filed Crl. M.P. No. 9835/14 for interim custody of the vehicle under Section 457 of the Code. It is seen from the order that the court below appear to have relied on the decision of this court in Shan Vs. State of Kerala, and imposed the conditions. Court below has not considered the scope of Section 23A of the Act which was introduced with effect from 25.11.2012 by way of Amendment Act XV/2013. Further, the scope of that section has been considered by this court in Aboobacker T.H. Vs. State of Kerala, in which it was observed as follows:

"The security mentioned therein, has to be liberally construed and a portion of the amount can be directed to be deposited and for the balance amount, the personal bond with two solvent sureties can be directed to be executed and that will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice".

So, considering the above circumstances, the condition imposed by the court below appears to be illegal and so, the condition is modified as follows:

"The petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the value of the vehicle namely, Rs. 42,000/- and execute a bond for the balance amount instead of Bank guarantee with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned magistrate. Further, the order will be subject to the final order of confiscation if any to be passed by the competent authority as provided under the proviso to Section 23A(2) of the Act."

With the above modification, the revision is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.