IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2886 of 2009() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/08/2009 IN CRMP 7615/2009 IN CC.793/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,CHALAKUDY .................... (CRIME NO.178/09 OF KORATTY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): CLAIM PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------- JOMON,AGED 30.S/O.THOMAS,NJERLELY HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE DESOM,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.C.D.JOHNY, MR.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KORATTY POLICE STATION,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2886 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Tipper lorry KL-11/V 5190 was seized by the police and Crime No.178/2009 of Koratty Police Station was registered for the offence under Sections 17(4) and 20 read with Section 23 of Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Petitioner, claiming to be the registered owner, filed Crl.M.P.No.7615/2009 for interim custody of the vehicle. Under Anenxure-A1 order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition, following the decision of this Court in P.K.Alavi v. District Collector (2007 (4) KLT 473), holding that petitioner has to approach the District Collector. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 order and to release the vehicle to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 2886/09 2 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the vehicle was not seized at the time of transit, but based on a confession statement of the accused, who is in inimical terms with the petitioner and seizure was after 43 days and in such circumstances, learned Magistrate should have granted interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. 4. Learned Public prosecutor submitted that the vehicle has already been produced before the District Collector and confiscation proceedings are initiated. 5. As held by this Court in Alavi's case (supra), when vehicle is seized for contravention of the provisions of the KPRB & RRS Act and produced before the District Collector, remedy of the petitioner is to approach the District Collector for appropriate relief. I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-A1 order. Petition is dismissed. 7th September, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv