IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 349 of 2008() ----------------------------- CC.34/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR CRIME NO. 408/2006 THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE STATION .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- JOY, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. CHIRIYANKANDATH PORINCHU, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 349 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No. 408/2006 of West Police Station, Thrissur for an offence punishable under Clause 5 (a) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 r/w Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, challenges the order dated 16.01.2008 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C for interim custody of the lorry bearing registration No. KL 8B 8560 of which the petitioner claims to be registered owner. 2. The lorry in question was seized by the Town West Police on 26.10.2006 for allegedly transporting rationed articles. The learned Magistrate did not entertain the petition for the reason that the confiscation proceedings under Section 6(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 have been initiated by the District Collector, Thrissur. 3. It is admitted that neither the act nor the rules fix a time limit for the completion of the confiscation proceedings by the District Collector. The decision of the Apex Court in AIR 2003 SC 638 -Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat mandates that as far as CRL.R.P.NO. 349/2008 : 2: possible the interim custody of such vehicles and other properties should be ordered. Even though more than a year has elapsed after the seizure of the lorry in question, the petitioner contends that he has not been served with any notice in the confiscation proceedings stated to have been initiated by the Collector. If after the conclusion of the proceedings in crime No. 408/2006 it is ultimately found that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged, he will suffer irreparable loss on account of the exposure of the lorry to the ambient weather. Hence, it is necessary that a time limit has to be fixed for the finalisation of the confiscation proceedings. Accordingly, if the confiscation proceedings are not finalised by the District Collector, Thrissur within three months of date of receipt of a copy of this order, the District Collector shall release the vehicle on interim custody on an application filed by the petitioner. The release shall be on such terms as he may deem fit. This Crl. R.P is disposed of as above. Hand over a copy of this order to both sides. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P.NO. 349/2008 : 3: