IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2549 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.599/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... (CRIME NO.640/08 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SHAJI, KAVIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUVELIKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.E.S.ASHRAF RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 2549 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 8th September 2009 O R D E R Lorry No.KL-5/5227 was seized by the police in crime No.640/2008 of Sasthamcotta police station registered for the offences under Sections 379, 188 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 20 and 21 of Kerala River Bank Protection and Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Petitioner filed C.M.P.4365/2009 under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the vehicle. Under Annexure-A3 order learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that in view of the decision of this court in Shoukathali v. Tahsildar (2009 (1) KLT 640) petitioner has to approach District Collector for interim custody of the vehicle. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A3 order and for interim custody of the vehicle contending that when the offences alleged include offence under Indian Penal Code and when the vehicle was produced before the Magistrate, learned Magistrate is competent CRMC 2549/09 2 to grant interim custody under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure and dismissal of the application is illegal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that when the vehicle was seized by the police for an offence under the Indian Penal Code, fact that case is also registered for the offences under Kerala River Bank Protection and Removal of Sand Act, 2001 will not take away the powers of the court to grant interim custody of the vehicle and therefore, dismissal of the petition is not justified. It is submitted that confiscation proceedings is not at all initiated by the District Collector. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that confiscation proceedings is not initiated so far. In such circumstances, learned Magistrate is competent to grant interim custody of the vehicle on proper conditions. 4. Annexure-A3 order is quashed. C.M.P.No.4365/2009 is remitted to Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamcotta for granting interim CRMC 2549/09 3 custody to the petitioner provided he establishes that he is the R.C owner and on depositing of Rs.1,00,000/- or furnishing bank guarantee for the said sum. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.