IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2068 of 2011() ------------------------- CRMP.2621/2011 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... (CRIME NO.1/2011 OF FOREST RANGE OFFICE, ALATHUR) .... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- S.VADIVEL, NO.3161, J.PALLIYARAKOIL STREET, SALEM. BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SMT.P.MAYA. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ALATHUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.K. SAJEEV THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRMC.NO.2068/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.899/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD.30/03/2011. ANNEX.B: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.2621/2011 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, ALATHUR DTD. 22/06/2011. ANNEX.C: COPY OF THE SOLVENCY CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2068 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of July, 2011 ORDER An excavator belonging to the petitioner was seized by the forest officials for allegedly being used for commission of offences under Sec.27(1)(e)(i) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, "the Act”). Forest officials registered Crime No.1 of 2011. The vehicle was produced before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur where petitioner moved Crl.M.P.No.541 of 2011 under Sec.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”) for interim custody of the excavator. That application did not find favour with the learned Magistrate and it was dismissed. That order was challenged in this Court in Crl.M.C.No.899 of 2011. This court as per order dated March 30, 2011 allowed the criminal miscellaneous case and directed release of the excavator subject to certain conditions which include that petitioner shall produce bank guarantee for the value of excavator as may be got assessed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly learned Magistrate got the value of excavator assessed through the Mechanical Engineer, PWD. He reported value of the excavator as `.12,00,000/-. Crl.M.C.No.2068 of 2011 -: 2 :- Petitioner claimed that he is unable to produce bank guarantee since for the said purpose, he has to deposit liquid cash in the bank. Thereon, petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2621 of 2011 before learned Magistrate to accept landed property with solvency certificate showing its value as `.14,40,040/-. That petition was rejected by the learned Magistrate in view of the direction this Court had issued in the order in Crl.M.C.No.899 of 2011. The dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.2621 of 2010 is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel has submitted that petitioner belongs to Tamil Nadu and that he is prepared to offer landed property situated in Tamil Nadu as security. It is submitted that all persons interested in the said property are prepared to file affidavits before learned Magistrate and that they have produced solvency certificates showing value of the land which is more than the value of excavator assessed by the Mechanical Engineer. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that petitioner belongs to another State and once the vehicle is released to him, it may not be possible to get it back for confiscation under Sec.61A of the Act. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Court may consider the request of petitioner in case he is prepared to produce the original title deed in respect of the property, for which learned counsel for petitioner was not agreeable to. Crl.M.C.No.2068 of 2011 -: 3 :- 3. This Court disposed of Crl.M.C.No.899 of 2011 after hearing both sides and directed that the excavator could be released to the petitioner on condition among other things that he shall produce bank guarantee for value of the vehicle. That order was passed taking into account all aspects of the matter and with intend to protect the interest of both the parties. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor I do not find reason to modify the condition imposed by order dated 30.03.2011 in Crl.M.C.No.899 of 2011, not to say about reviewing the said order which is prohibited under Sec.362 of the Code. In the view of the order passed by this Court learned Magistrate is correct in dismissing Crl.M.P.No.2621 of 2011 and no interference is required. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of this order or dismissal of C.M.P.No.2621 of 2011 will not stand in the way of petitioner getting release of the vehicle on compliance of conditions imposed as per order dated March 30, 2011 in Crl.M.C.No.899 of 2011. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-