IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3752 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.2908/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------ IRSHAD K.T., S/O.ABBAS, AGED 22 YEARS, KADUVATHODI HOUSE, MANNENGODE POST, MULAYANKAVU, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PATTAMBI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO.3752 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner filed C.M.P. 2908 of 2008 before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi under section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of lorry KL-11/A- 7389 contending that he is the RC owner in possession of the vehicle and it was seized by the police on the allegation that it was used for transporting illicit river sand, when in fact no such offence was committed. Learned Magistrate as per order dated 16.10.2008 dismissed the application. It is challenged in this revision filed under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the very same vehicle was earlier used for transportation of river sand illegally and was seized and revision petitioner was granted custody of the vehicle and again the very same vehicle was used for transporting illicit river sand on 19.9.2008. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that the said fact CRRP3752/08 2 was not intimated to the counsel and that is the reason why it was pleaded in the revision petition that the vehicle was not used for transportation of illicit river sand. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. When the very same vehicle was earlier released to the revision petitioner and it is again used for the same purpose illegally, petitioner is not entitled to interim custody of the vehicle under section 457 of Cr.P.C. Revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-