IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1583 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRMP.3194/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,CHALAKUDY. CRIME NO.495/2009 OF MALA POLICE STATION . .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ANNIE THOMAS, W/O. THOMAS P.A., PLAKKAL HOUSE, MALA - PALLIPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1583 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 21st May 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-II order and to release vehicle KL-8-AF-367 to the petitioner on furnishing sufficient guarantee. As per Annexure-II order Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy dismissed the application for interim custody of the vehicle for the reason that vehicle can be released only after inspection of the waste kept in the vehicle by the Pollution Control Board. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order Pollution Control Board has not examined the vehicle and if the vehicle is to be retained as it now stands, its value would be deteriorated and petitioner is prepared to furnish security and sufficient undertaking and therefore vehicle may be released. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that direction could be issued to the Pollution Control CRMC 1583/09 2 Board to inspect the vehicle within a period and before the inspection vehicle may not be released. 3. On hearing the learned counsel I do not find it proper to release the vehicle to the petitioner as sought for before the inspection by Pollution Control Board, as the allegation is that he committed offences under Section 24(1) read with Section 43 of Water Prevention Control of Pollution Control of Pollution Act. Magistrate has only stated that petitioner is not entitled to get the custody before such inspection. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed. But Pollution Control Board is directed to examine the vehicle within three weeks from today. Petitioner is at liberty to move the Magistrate thereafter for release of the vehicle. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.