IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1893 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRMP.8070/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.M. KAMAPPU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------- P.G.LATHAKUMARI, D/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, EDAPPAVOOR MURI, AYIROOR KARA, RANNI TALUK. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO.1893 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The State has filed the revision challenging the order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla in Crl.M.P.8070 of 2007 in Crime 315 of 2007 wherein a petition filed by first respondent under section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for custody of lorry KL3-Q 7265 involved in transportation of river sand in contravention to the provisions of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act was allowed and interim custody was given on executing the bond for Rs.20,000/- with two solvent sureties. The order is challenged in this revision filed under section 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that section 457 of Cr.P.C. should not have been invoked by the Court as no report was filed under section 102 of Cr.P.C. 2. Though notice was served on first respondent, she did not appear. 3. The argument of the learned public prosecutor is that CRRP 1893/08 2 even if the learned Magistrate is competent to grant interim custody of the vehicle under section 457 of Cr.P.C. , the learned Magistrate should have imposed necessary conditions as done by this Court in Ahammed Kutty v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 1068). 4. This Court has considered the effect of non filing of a report as provided under section 102 of Cr.P.C. in a case where the vehicle was seized under the provisions of Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. It was held that in the absence of any specific provision under the Special Act, provisions under sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. pertaining to interim custody of the properties seized under Special Laws will have their full operation and if the seizing officer is a revenue official, he shall hand over it to the police who has a corresponding duty to register the crime and report the seizure to the Magistrate and even if no report is filed, the Magistrate is competent to grant interim custody as provided under section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore the order granting interim custody cannot be challenged. 5. There is force in the submission of the learned CRRP 1893/08 3 Prosecutor that necessary conditions were not imposed by the learned Magistrate. The impugned order is therefore quashed. Learned Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate order in Crl.M.P.8070 of 2007 imposing conditions, in the light of the directions given by this Court in Ahammed Kutty’s case (supra). Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-