IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 486 of 2011() ----------------------------------- ( CR NO.796/2010 OF VADAKKEKKAD POLICE STATION) --------------------------- PETITIONER/ ACCUSED ------------------------------------ SHANAVAS, S/O.ISMAIL, KARAPPAM VEETTIL HOUSE, CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKKAD POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.486 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-36/3745. It is alleged that first respondent, Sub Inspector intercepted that vehicle on 13.12.2010 at about 10 a.m and found it carrying sea sand in 20 plastic sacks. The vehicle and the plastic sacks containing sea sand were seized and a case was registered as Crime No.796 of 2010 under Secs.20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short, "the Act”). According to the petitioner the vehicle and sand are handed over to appropriate authority under the Act. Learned counsel contends that registration of the case for offence punishable under Secs.20 and 23 of the Act is illegal since the said Act applies only in the matter of river sand while what was allegedly seized from the vehicle is sea sand. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel would argue that since what is seized is sea sand the provision of the Act have no application and seizure is illegal. Crl.M.C.No.486 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. None of the accused has challenged the FIR. Petitioner is not an accused in the FIR as it now stands nor has petitioner preferred any application before the appropriate authority for release of the vehicle raising the above stated contention. I do not find reason for this Court in the circumstances to express opinion in the matter but, I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to move application before the appropriate authority before which the vehicle is produced and raise all his contentions. If any such application is preferred, such authority shall consider the contention and pass appropriate orders. This criminal miscellaneous case is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-