IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2048 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.880/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ---------------------------------------------- SURENDRAN, S/O.KESAVAN, NEDUMTHARAYIL HOUSE, OLD VYTHIRI, VYTHIRI POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2048 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim under Section 451 Cr.P.C for interim release of a vehicle jeep, KL- 12 B 4342 to him, passed by the learned CJM, Wyanad. 2. The vehicle was seized by the Forest officials on the allegation that the petitioner, the registered owner of the said vehicle, had trespassed into the forest in that vehicle carrying with him armed unlicensed gun as also explosives. The vehicle was produced before the learned CJM. An application was filed for interim release of the said vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. 3. A contention was raised that the vehicle has already become property of the Government under Section 39(1) (d) of the Wild Life Protection Act and that, consequently, there can be no question of interim release of the vehicle to the petitioner, the vehicle having already become Government property. 4. The attention of the learned Magistrate was drawn to the decision in State of M.P. & others V. Madhukar Rao [2008 (1) Crl.M.C. No. 2048 OF 2008 2 SLT 691] and the learned CJM relying on paragraph 11 of the said decision, came to the conclusion that the court has got jurisdictional competence to issue appropriate directions for release under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The learned CJM, however, came to the conclusion that the petitioner in this case does not deserve to be granted interim custody of the vehicle considering the nature of the alleged crime and the circumstance that the vehicle with the petitioner inside the same possessing an unlicensed gun and explosives were found inside and seized from the forest. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He has valid contentions to advance and that, at any rate, it may not now be assumed really that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated or has become property of the Government under Section 39. Counsel wants this Court to take note of the decision in Sundar Bai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gurajat [2003 SC 638] which cautions the courts of the dangers of leaving valuable property in the custody of the court or the Crl.M.C. No. 2048 OF 2008 3 officers, exposed to sun and rain and liable to damage and destruction. 6. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied, notwithstanding by the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor that subject to appropriate conditions the vehicle can be released to the petitioner. I take note of the reality that some time shall be taken for disposal of the case by the learned Magistrate and it is not necessary to allow the vehicle to remain exposed to sun and rain during the said interregnum period. 7. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, allowed. The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions: 1. Petitioner shall produce before the learned Magistrate all necessary documents to show that he is the owner entitled for the possession of the same. 2. The petitioner shall execute a bond for the value of the vehicle to be determined by the learned Magistrate. 3. The petitioner shall produce bank guarantee or make cash deposit of the value of the vehicle as determined by the learned Magistrate. Crl.M.C. No. 2048 OF 2008 4 4. In the bond to be executed by the petitioner, the petitioner shall undertake that the vehicle shall not be used for commission of any offences while it is in his possession and also that he shall keep the vehicle in the same condition in which it is handed over to him till it is produced before Court as and when directed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 2048 OF 2008 5 Crl.M.C. No. 2048 OF 2008 6