IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3918 of 2009() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.3937/2009 IN OR.19/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SABU.N.S. S/O. GEORGE, NEDUMKALLEL HOUSE, CHAPPAMALA.P.O., KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.C.C.ABRAHAM, MR.SAJIKUMAR.K.K., MR.K.J.JOSEPH(CHUNGAKKUNNU). RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.3918 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 18th December 2009 O R D E R Jeep No.KL-13-C/7453 was seized in O.R.19/2009 of Kottiyoor Forest Range Office registered for the offences under Sections 2(1b), 20,(36), 9,39(1)(d), 50 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act. Petitioner filed C.M.P.3937/2009 for interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure. By Annexure-A4 order learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that when Section 39(d) provides for confiscation, learned Magistrate cannot grant interim custody of the vehicle. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A4 order and to grant Crmc 3918/09 2 interim custody of the vehicle. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Under Section 39 of Wild Life Protection Act, every vehicle used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of the Act shall be the property of the Government. Hence unless it is established that the vehicle was used for committing the offence, the vehicle cannot be treated as that of the government. In such circumstances, learned Magistrate was not justified in holding that in view of Section 39 of the Act interim custody cannot be granted. As held by this court in Mathew v. Range Officer (2004 Crl.L.J 3961) under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Crmc 3918/09 3 Procedure, Magistrate is competent to grant interim custody of the vehicle. 4. In such circumstances, Annexure- A4 order is quashed. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuthuparamba is directed to re- consider C.M.P.3937/2009 and if petitioner is the registered owner as he is entitled to get interim custody, to grant interim custody on sufficient conditions. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.