IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 605 of 2010() ----------------------------------- C.M.P.77/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY. ................ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.C. SIMON, S/O.CHELLAN PILLAI, SEETHARAM COLONY, I MAIN ROAD,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALASSERY POLICE STATION. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KANNAVAM FOREST RANGE. R1& R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 605 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 9th day of March,2010 ORDER Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.77/2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thalassery under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for interim custody of Opal Corsa Motor Car No.TN-07-b-7771 seized by the Range Officer in OR.4/2009 contending that the car is kept in open space exposed to sun and rain and he being the registered owner is entitled to get interim custody. By Annexure A1 order learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the case is under investigation and the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under section 39 of Wildlife Protection Act and hence interim custody cannot be granted. 2. This petition is filed under section Crl.M.C.605/2010 2 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A1 order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor was heard. 4. The vehicle was seized in O.R.4/2009 of Kannavam Forest Range on the allegation that an offence under the Wildlife Protection Act was committed. Learned Magistrate dismissed the petition only on the ground that under section 39 of the Wildlife Protection Act the vehicle is liable for confiscation. But under the said section vessel, weapon or tool that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of the Act shall be the property of the Central Government only on conviction. Till the accused is convicted for the offence, the property is not the property of the Government. 5. As held by this Court in Mathew v. Range Officer (2004(2) KLT 865 till it is found by the Crl.M.C.605/2010 3 court that an offence is committed, the vehicle cannot be confiscated and till then interim custody could be granted on sufficient conditions under section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated. Petition is allowed. Annexure A1 order is quashed. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery is directed to reconsider C.M.P.77/2010 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006