IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 109 of 2009() ------------------------ CMP.1077/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PONNANI CRIME NO.667/08 OF THE PONNANI POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- HUSSAINKUTTY,PADUNGAL HOUSE, S/O.MODEENKUTY, ORUMANAYUR AMSOM, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 109 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle which was allegedly involved in the illicit transportation of river sand. Crime has been registered. The vehicle was seized and the seizure was reported to the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dismissed the same holding that the vehicle was earlier involved in another similar crime and the petitioner was obliged to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- already. Apprehending that the vehicle would be made use of for committing similar offences, the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the claim for release of the vehicle. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Crl.M.C. No. 109 of 2009 -: 2 :- the vehicle was not involved in the commission of any offence and given an opportunity at the appropriate stage, the contention of the petitioner shall be substantiated. At any rate, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle does not deserve to be exposed to sun and rain and consequent damage and deterioration. Subject to any appropriate conditions, the vehicle may be ordered to be released to the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the vehicle can be directed to be released to the petitioner subject to appropriate terms and conditions which shall safeguard the interests of the State and ensure that the vehicle shall not be used for the commission of identical offence. In coming to this conclusion, concerns which weighed with the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) have been considered by me closely. Appropriate conditions can, of course, be imposed 4. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) The vehicle in question bearing registration No.KL- 10C-6766 shall be released to the petitioner on the following Crl.M.C. No. 109 of 2009 -: 3 :- terms and condition: (i) The petitioner shall produce before the learned Magistrate all documents to show that the petitioner is the owner entitled to possession of the vehicle. (ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for the value of the vehicle to be ascertained by the learned Magistrate with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) In such bond, the petitioner shall undertake that the vehicle while in his possession on the strength of this order shall not be used for the commission of any offence under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short `the Act') and that the vehicle shall be produced before the learned Magistrate or as directed by him or as directed in any valid order of confiscation that may be passed under the Act. (iii) The petitioner shall make a deposit of cash security of Rs.25,000/-. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 109 of 2009 -: 4 :-