IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3535 of 2009(F) ---------------------------------- CRRP.82/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CMP.1332/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SIDHEEQUE KAVUNGAL, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY ABDUSSAMAD, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. MAMMADU, KEERALUNGAL PURA HOUSE, KARIPUR AMSOM, CHIRAYIL DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALU,K, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA SMT.A.LOWSY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- S.I. OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3535 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 17th November 2009 O R D E R Motor cycle Kl-10-AA-3860 was seized on the allegation that it was used for illicit transportation of sandal wood pieces on 22/5/2008. Petitioner filed C.M.P.1332/2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, (Forest Offence), Manjeri under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the vehicle. By Annexure-C order learned Magistrate dismissed the petition accepting the submission of the Public Prosecutor that confiscation proceedings were already initiated under Section 61A of Kerala Forest Act and vehicle was produced before the authorized officer. Petitioner challenged that order before Sessions court, Manjeri in Crl.R.P.316/2008. By Annexure-D order, revision was dismissed. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexures-C and D orders contending that till this day petitioner did not receive any notice in the confiscation proceedings as provided under Section 61B of Kerala Forest Act and Crmc 3535/09 2 if the vehicle is retained by the authorized officer, its value will be reduced and therefore, interim custody may be granted. It is also contended that even if, confiscation proceedings are pending, interim custody would be granted. 2. Learned counsel relying on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in John v. D.F.O, Kottayam (1996 (2) KLT 984) argued that even if proceedings under Section 61A is pending, interim custody could be granted. In view of the later decision of the Apex court, holding that when confiscation proceedings are pending in respect of a vehicle allegedly used for commission of a forest offence, it is for the authorized officer under the Act to decide whether it is to be confiscated and interim custody cannot be granted by the Magistrate under Section 451 or 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner cannot be granted interim custody. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the authorized officer to get interim custody of the vehicle. If such an application is filed, authorized officer to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.