IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3087 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.3993/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- SUMESH T.SOMAN, S/O.SOMAN, AGED 25 YEARS, THERANDITHOTTIL HOUSE, THOTTARA, KULYITTIKARA P.O., AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SHAJU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLOOR POLICE STATION. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3087 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August 2008 O R D E R The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the revenue officials on the allegation that it was used for illicit transportation of sand contrary to the provisions of the 'The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001'. No crime was registered. An application was filed before the learned Magistrate for release of the vehicle and the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, had directed release of the vehicle subject to the condition that the petitioner must execute a bond for Rs.1,25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. There is a further direction that an amount of Rs.25,000/- must be deposited as cash security. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed is onerous. The petitioner has not committed any offence. The petitioner has got passes to justify his transportation of sand. In these circumstances, the onerous condition for deposit of an amount of Rs.25,000/- may be set Crl.M.C.No.3087/08 2 aside and the vehicle may be directed to be released to the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the conditions imposed are conditions which are generally imposed in such matters. There is no necessity to deviate from the practice that is followed usually. If the petitioner has a case that the transportation was covered by valid passes, the petitioner must forthwith approach the District Collector and make an application for unconditional release of the vehicle. That having not been done by the petitioner, the prayer to modify the usual conditions which are imposed is not justified, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. The conditions imposed in this case cannot be said to be excessive or unwarranted. The conditions do appeal to me to be quite reasonable and satisfactory. I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned order deserves to be modified. 5. However, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be given the option to move the District Collector for completion of Crl.M.C.No.3087/08 3 the confiscation proceedings against the petitioner. He may satisfy the District Collector that the vehicle is not liable to be confiscated and is liable to be released unconditionally to him. The petitioner can produce the passes which he claims to have in his possession to justify transportation of sand in his vehicle. If such request is made by the petitioner, the District Collector must forthwith consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 6. This petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3087/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3087/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008