IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3255 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ CMP.2653/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------------- SUNIL.P.K, S/O. VASU, PADAKKALIKANDATHIL HOUSE, NADUVATTOM, THIRUVEGAPURA, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3255 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 ORDER Lorry KL-7G/3911 was seized by S.I of Police, Pattambi. Petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It was dismissed by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi as per order dated 9.9.2008. This petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging that order, contending that in view of the decision of this court in Ahammed Kutty V. State of Kerala(2008(1) KLT 1068), learned Magistrate should have granted custody of the vehicle to the petitioner on conditions. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The vehicle was seized by police and was not produced before learned Magistrate. It was produced before District Collector. When the petition was filed before learned Magistrate under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it was dismissed on the ground that District Collector has to take appropriate action. This court has considered the maintainability of a petition for custody of the vehicle under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Ahammed Kutty's case (supra). This court held that the procedure for confiscation in CRRP 3255/2008 2 Sand Act and Rules is imperfect, vague and unworkable and it cannot be said to be a self contained code excluding the operation of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to interim custody and related matters. It was held that seized vehicles lying exposed to ambient whether and getting deteriorated in value is to be avoided and Magistrate can grant interim custody of the vehicle under 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. As the facts are identical, revision petition is allowed. Learned Magistrate is directed to grant interim custody of the vehicle to petitioner on depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- and executing a bond for Rs.5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate on the petitioner undertaking not to permit use of the lorry for any illicit purpose and not to transfer wholly or in part the lorry to any other person and to produce the lorry before the Magistrate as and when directed. The order will be subject to the final order, if any to be passed for confiscation. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-