IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1077 of 2009() ------------------------------ C.M.P.NO.860/2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,CHITTUR (OR NO.17/2008 OF KOLLENGODE FOREST RANGE OFFICE) REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- KRISHNAVENI, W/O.SIVASUBRAMANYA GOUNDER, CHINNASAMBY, MOOLATHARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD, REP. BY POWER OF ATONRNEY, A.THANKARAJ, S/O.ARJUNAN NADAR, KIZHAVAN PUTHUR, VADAKKU THOTTAM, PERIYAPOTHU, POLLACHI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KOLLENGODE RANGE OFFICE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 1077 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner who claims to be the owner of a tractor bearing registration No.TN 41/R-2989 and a trailer bearing registration No. TN 41/S-1326 involved in O.R. No.17/2008 of Kollengode Forest Range Office registered under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) and 52 (1) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1951 challenges the order dated 27-1-2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittur dismissing her application filed under section 53 of the Kerala Forest Act for interim custody of the vehicles. 2. The vehicles have already been produced before the Authorized Officer for confiscation proceedings under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act. If that be so, by virtue of Section 53 of the said Act it is the officer concerned who can grant interim custody of the vehicles (Vide John V. D.F.O., Kottayam (1996(2) KLT 984) and the order dated 22-1-2008 in Crl.M.C. No.42/2008). The learned Magistrate was, therefore, justified in dismissing the application. 3. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed without Crl.R.P. 1077/2009 -2- prejudice the right of the petitioner to move the officer concerned under Section 53 of the Act. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.