IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3160 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.526/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MANANTHAVADY .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- NAJEEB, S/O.ISMAILKUTTY HAJI, AKKARAVAYAPPURATH VEEDU, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY FOREST RANGE, MANANTHAVADY, WYANAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3160 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order under which his application for release of a vehicle was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The crux of the allegations is that on 12/1/2008 the petitioner's vehicle was used for transport of rose wood which belongs to the Government. Crime was registered. The precise allegation is that the vehicle was engaged in the act of escorting another vehicle in which illicit transportation of rose wood was taking place. Seizure was effected on 11/1/2008. The petitioner applied for release of vehicle to him. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected the application on the ground that proceedings under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act has been initiated and the vehicle has been handed over to the authorities for initiation of action under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle has remained in custody of the officials from 12/1/2008. So far, not even a show cause notice under Section 61B of the Kerala Forest Act has been issued. In these Crl.M.C.No.3160/08 2 circumstances whether invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C or invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India there may be a direction to release the vehicle to the petitioner. The concern which engaged the attention of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [SC 2003(2) KLT 1089] may be borne in mind by this court and appropriate directions may be issued to ensure that the vehicle is not exposed to unnecessary damage, deterioration and loss. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for release; but concedes that till now no show cause notice under Section 61B of the Kerala Forest Act has been issued. Seizure was effected in January 2008. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that further retention of the vehicle in the custody of the officials and consequent inevitable loss, damage and deterioration of the vehicle must be avoided. Whether invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am satisfied that release of the vehicle can be ordered subject to appropriate and strict conditions. Crl.M.C.No.3160/08 3 4. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. b) The vehilce No.KLD 8938 shall be released to the petitioner by the State, in whosoever custody it be now under the following terms and conditions. i) The petitioner shall produce before the learned Magistrate all documents to show that he is the person entitled to possession of the vehicle. ii) He shall execute a bond for an amount equal to the value of the vehicle and shall produce a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate for the value of the vehicle as may be ascertained and determined by the learned Magistrate. In such bond, the petitioner shall undertake to produce the vehicle before the court or any other authority as may be directed by the learned Magistrate from time to time. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3160/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3160/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008