IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4813 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.3402/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHRAF, S/O.MOHAMMEED, PERISSERY HOUSE, PERUMANNA AMSOM DESOM,,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4813 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. A vehicle belonging to him was seized on 22.04.08 as it was allegedly used for the commission of the said crime. The petitioner claims to be the owner entitled to possession of the vehicle. His application for release of the vehicle was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. He claims to be aggrieved by the same. According to the petitioner, he is innocent and he will be able to prove his innocence before the learned Magistrate. No orders of confiscation has been passed under said Act so far by the Revenue authorities. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that imbibing the concerns which have been expressed by the Supreme Court in Sunder bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [A.I.R 2003 S.C 638], appropriate directions may be issued to release the vehicle to the petitioner subject to any reasonable terms and conditions. Crl.M.C. No.4813 of 2008 2 2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor . The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the final report has already been filed and the prosecution is pending before the learned Magistrate. It is true that the vehicle was seized on 22.04.08. No order of confiscation has been passed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 so far, concedes the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor, in these circumstances, does not oppose the prayer and I am satisfied that subject to appropriate conditions, the vehicle can be released to the petitioner. I take note of the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor that the same vehicle was involved in an earlier identical offence and the same was released to the petitioner as per the order of the Court. It is also brought to my notice that in this case earlier another Bench of this Court had rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle as investigation was pending at that time. 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed; b) The impugned order is set aside; Crl.M.C. No.4813 of 2008 3 c) The vehicle in question shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions: i) The petitioner shall produce before the learned Magistrate all documents to prove that he is the owner of the vehicle entitled for possession; ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for an amount equal to the value of the vehicle as ascertained by the learned Magistrate; iii) The petitioner shall make a cash deposit of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) before the learned Magistrate; iv) In such bond to be executed by him, the petitioner shall undertake that the vehicle, while in his possession, on the strength of this order, shall not be used or permitted to be used for commission of any offence under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 200; v) On execution of a bond as directed above, the learned Magistrate shall issue an order of release; whereupon the vehicle, in whosesoever possession it may be, shall forthwith be released to the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-