IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2531 of 2009() ------------------------------ CMP.1920/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, THAMARASSERY IN CRIME NO.207 Of 2009 Of THE MUKKOM POLICE STATION. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------- KARUNAKARAN, S/O.ARAMUGHAN, METHALAKUNNATHU HOUSE, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUKKOM POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2531 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of August 2009 ORDER This revision arises from the order dated 30-07-2009 on C.M.P.No.1920 of 2009 in crime No.207 of 2009 of Mukkom Police station. A mini lorry of which petitioner is the registered owner was seized by the Mukkom Police while allegedly involving in illicit transportation of sand. Police registered crime No.207 of 2009 for offence punishable under section 4(1A) r/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (for short, “the Act”). It appears that a report regarding seizure given to the District Collector concerned, as well. Petitioner moved C.M.P.No.1920 of 2009 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class No-2, Thamarassery for release of the vehicle pending disposal of the case under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Learned magistrate placed reliance on the decision in Shoukathali V. Tahasildar (2009 (1) KLT 640) and dismissed the application since according to the learned magistrate the proper authority to consider release of the vehicle is the District Collector. That order is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that under the provisions of the Act, the District Collector is not the authority to order confiscation and power for confiscation is conferred on the court trying the offender. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted Crl.R.P.No.2531 of 2009 2 that case is registered only under the provision of that Act. 2. The decision relied on by learned magistrate referred to the power of confiscation of vehicles involved in violation of the provisions of Protection of River Banks and Regulation and Removal of Sand Act 2001 (Kerala) where the District Collector is the authority competent to order confiscation. It is in that situation that it was held that the court should not deal application for release of vehicles. In this case, the Kerala Act has no application and what is involved is the provisions of the Central Act. Section 21(4A) of the Act states that the vehicle etc seized under subsection (4) of that section shall be liable for confiscation by an order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under subsection (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court. Hence the court below was not correct in holding that the authority to deal with confiscation is the District Collector. As the authority competent to order confiscation is the court concerned, it was well within the power of that court to grant interim custody of the vehicle under section 457 of the Code. 3. It is not shown that the vehicle seized is involved in any other case. It is also not disputed that petitioner is its registered owner. There is no reason why the vehicle should be kept idle and spoiled till the case is disposed of. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner but subject to conditions. Crl.R.P.No.2531 of 2009 3 Resultantly this revision is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside and C.M.P.No.1920 of 2009 will stand allowed. Interim custody of the vehicle shall be given to the petitioner on his executing bond for Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court below and subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by learned magistrate during the pendency or at the time of disposal of the case as the case may be. 2. Petitioner shall not transfer or otherwise dispose of the vehicle during the period the bond remained in force and until learned magistrate issued direction regarding the final disposal of the vehicle. 3. It is directed that petitioner shall use the vehicle only in accordance with a valid permit and other vehicular documents issued by the competent authority. It is directed that if the vehicle is used for any unlawful purpose whatsoever, the bond executed by the petitioner shall be canceled. It is for learned magistrate to issue direction regarding the final disposal of the vehicle and to cause production of the vehicle. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/