IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4017 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.3818/2008 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------- MOHAMMED NIZAR, S/O. MOIDEEN, PALLATHODI HOUSE, CHERUKARA POST, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.KISHOR B. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 4017 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is challenging the order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perinthalmanna in C.M.P.3818 of 2008, an application filed under section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of mini lorry KL-11/1713 seized by Perinthalmanna police for illegal transportation of river sand. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application finding that the same vehicle was used for illegal transportation and after remitting Rs.20,000/- each on two occasions and Rs.25,000/- on another occasion and the vehicle was released to the revision petitioner in Crime 178/2008, 200/2008 and 418/2008 and if the vehicle is to be released, it will be again be used for illegal transportation of sand and therefore the petition cannot be granted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner relying on the Division Bench decision of this CRRP 4017/2008 2 Court in Moideen Vs. State of Kerala (2007(4) KHC 96) was that the fact that offences were earlier compounded, does not mean that revision petitioner has committed the offences and learned Magistrate was not justified in not granting interim custody of vehicle. 4. The mini lorry was seized by police finding that it was used for illegal transportation of river sand. The fact that crime 178/2008, 200/2008 and 418/2008 were earlier registered in respect of the same vehicle is not disputed. It is also admitted that revision petitioner had compounded those cases by paying Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively. In such circumstances finding of the learned Magistrate that if interim custody is to be granted, the vehicle would again be used for illegal transportation of sand is legal. But the question is when the District Collector has not passed confiscation order, whether the vehicle is to be allowed to be deteriorated or whether interim custody of the vehicle to be granted. Considering all the relevant facts Magistrate is directed to release the vehicle to the revision petitioner on deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- and also executing a bond undertaking not to use CRRP 4017/2008 3 the vehicle for transportation of sand whether legally or illegally and also undertaking not to transfer the vehicle and produce the vehicle as and when directed by District Collector. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-