IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4840 of 2010() ------------------------- ORDER IN OR NO.21/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALATHUR PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- ASHARAF ALI, S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, VADAKKUMTHODI HOUSE,ANJUMURTHY (PO),ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,ALATHUR RANGE, ANAKKAPPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4840 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is challenging Annexure-G, order passed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur in OR No.21 of 2010 refusing to grant interim custody of the vehicle allegedly involved in the case to him. Petitioner is the registered owner of tempo van bearing registration No.KL-04/S 3032. It is alleged that for alleged illicit transportation of rose wood trees the said vehicle along with the timber were seized on 22.07.2010 and the same were entrusted to the Range Officer, Alathur for further proceedings. Based on that, OR No.21 of 2010 was registered under Section 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, “the Act”). It is contended by learned counsel that no offence as alleged is committed since even as per the records produced by the forest officials rose wood trees were collected from private properties. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Sukumaran v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT 546). Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the matter is being investigated and at this stage it is not possible to conclude that properties where from rose wood trees were collected, are private properties. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that the vehicle and timber are liable for confiscation by the Authorised Officer as provided under Section 61B of the Act. Crl.M.C.No.4840/2010 2 2. The Supreme Court has pointed out that in cases where the vehicle involved is liable for confiscation, criminal courts must be slow in releasing the vehicle. I am not going into the merit of the contentions advanced at this stage since that is a matter which required further investigation. Having regard to the facts of the case I do not find reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Magistrate. 3. At the same time request of the petitioner who claims to be the registered owner of vehicle is to be considered. It is not as if the Authorised Officer is powerless to release the vehicle on interim custody to avoid it being rested and damaged but, that has to be on appropriate conditions. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I make it clear that if petitioner makes an application to the Authorised Officer for interim custody of the vehicle and proves that he is the registered owner entitled to interim custody, the Authorised Officer shall release the vehicle to the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions including that petitioner will deposit half of value of vehicle to be assessed by the Authorised Officer and furnish security for the remaining half of the said amount with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer. Petition is disposed of as above. Crl.M.C.No.4840/2010 3 Crl.M.A.No.7846 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks