IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3283 of 2008(A) --------------------------------------------- CMP. NO. 2712/2008 OF J.F.C.M. COURT-I, PERINTHALMANNA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- NAFEESA, W/O. MAMMU, KALAKAPPARA HOUSE, P.O. KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, THROUSH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3283 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is challenging the order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perinthalmanna, dismissing CMP 2712 of 2008 in Crime No. 365 of 2008 of Kulathoor Police Station refusing to grant interim custody of the vehicle. Case of petitioner is that he is the owner in possession of KL03/B 3684 lorry which was seized by S.I of Kulathoor police station on 30.8.2008 at about 12.30 pm and the vehicle was not transporting river sand as alleged and therefore the seizure is illegal and petitioner is entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure as the vehicle, if allowed to be detained, will get damaged and petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the vehicle was involved in a similar crime earlier and was released to petitioner under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure and again the vehicle was used for committing the same offence and therefore it cannot be released to the petitioner. The argument of learned counsel is that when the vehicle was seized CRRP 3283/2008 2 by the police, it did not contain any river sand as alleged and therefore there was no violation of the condition undertaken by the petitioner and hence the dismissal of the application is not sustainable. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the seizure mahazar prepared by S.I of Police on 30.8.2008, the date when it was seized. Being a contemporaneous record it is very relevant. As rightly found by learned Magistrate, seizure mahazar establishes that vehicle was used for transporting river sand. Petitioner has no case that he was having any license or authorisation to transport river sand at that time. When interim custody of the vehicle was earlier entrusted to revision petitioner and he used the same vehicle for committing the same unlawful act of transporting river sand illegally, learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the application. I find no reason to interfere with that finding. Revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is entitled to take all defences at the time of trial. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-