IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3681 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 342/08 OF PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION CMP.7659/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VADAKKANCHERY .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SHIJAN JOSE, S/O.JOSE, PUTTHAN (H), THOZHUPADAM DESOM, PIACULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3681 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner, whose vehicle - a Mini Tipper Lorry bearing No. KL 10/N 1890 – was allegedly involved in the culpable transportation of river sand and which remains in the custody of the court, was not returned to the petitioner by the impugned order. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order and has come to this Court with a prayer that directions may be issued to release the vehicle to his custody on appropriate terms and conditions. 2. The learned Prosecutor submits that the vehicle was seized on 22.8.2008. The same was produced before Court. It remains in the custody of the court. Objections were raised against release of the vehicle as the vehicle was involved in two other earlier crimes, in which objectionable transportation of river sand was made using the very same vehicle. It is, in these circumstances, submitted that it would not be advisable to direct Crl.M.C.No. 3681 of 2008 2 release of the vehicle to the petitioner. If at all the same is directed to be released, the same may be on appropriate and strict conditions. The past conduct of the petitioner may be taken into consideration, it is submitted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that on any appropriate terms and conditions the vehicle may be directed to be released to the petitioner. The petitioner shall undertake to ensure that the vehicle is not used for any such objectionable activity if the vehicle were released to him. The learned counsel further submits that this Court may take note of the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638). The sad spectacle of costly vehicles suffering damage and deterioration unnecessarily exposed to sun and rain may be avoided, submits the counsel. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The past record of the petitioner is not very rosy. But I am satisfied that subject to appropriate conditions the vehicle can be released to the petitioner. In Crl.M.C.No. 3681 of 2008 3 coming to this conclusion I take note of the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra). 5. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. b) The impugned order is set aside. c) The vehicle KL 10/N 1890 shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions. i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for an amount equal to the value of the vehicle to be determined by the learned Magistrate in his assessment with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. ii) He shall produce all documents before the learned Magistrate to show that he is the person entitled to possession of the vehicle. iii) In the bond to be executed by the petitioner, he shall undertake that the vehicle shall not be used for the commission of any offence under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act while it is in his possession. Crl.M.C.No. 3681 of 2008 4 iv) The petitioner shall make a cash deposit of Rs.35,000/- before the learned Magistrate, which amount shall be released to the petitioner on satisfactory proof that the proceedings for confiscation initiated by the Revenue Authorities concerned are over and the amounts, if any, ordered in such proceedings have been paid and discharged. (R. BASANT) Judge tm