IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2241 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.2433/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR O.R.2/08 OF PONGANAMKADU FOREST STATION .................... PETITIONER: ------------ ISMAIL, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. THORAPPA UNNIN, KODU DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.SURESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER PONGANAMKADU. THRISSUR. 3. SHRI.MOHAMAD USMAN, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.HASSAN, PANTODY HOUSE, KODU DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2241 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner's vehicle is allegedly involved in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act. Crime has been registered. The learned Magistrate has been informed of the occurrence as well as the seizure of the vehicle. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate rejected the said prayer on the ground that proceedings under Section 61 A of the Kerala Forest Act has been initiated. 2. On the petitioner's application, at the time when the matter came up for hearing, a direction was issued to the learned Public Prosecutor to take specific instructions as to whether proceedings under Section 61 A of the Kerala Forest Act has already been initiated and if so at what stage the proceedings are now. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor today also only submits that the vehicle has been taken back and has been produced before the authorised officer appointed under Section 61 A of the Kerala Forest Act. There is no specific assertion that any further steps have been taken. Crl.M.C. No.2241 of 2008 2 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, in these circumstances, submits that, at any rate, proceedings under Section 61 A of the Kerala Forest Act having been initiated, the vehicle may not be returned to the petitioner. If at all it were to be released to the petitioner, it may be ensured that adequate security is taken to secure the value of the vehicle before it is released to the petitioner. 5. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued regarding release of the vehicle. I must imbibe the concerns which the Supreme Court expressed in Sunder bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [A.I.R 2003 S.C 638]. There is no specific assertion that any specific steps under Section 61 A of the Kerala Forest Act have actually been taken by now. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that subject to appropriate conditions, the vehicle can be directed to be released to the petitioner. 6. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, allowed; b) The impugned order is set aside; c) The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions: i) The petitioner shall produce all documents to prove that he is the owner of the vehicle entitled for possession; Crl.M.C. No.2241 of 2008 3 ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for an amount equal to the value of the vehicle as ascertained by the learned Magistrate; iii) The petitioner shall produce bank guarantee or offer cash security for the value of the vehicle as ascertained by the learned Magistrate; iv) In such bond, the petitioner shall undertake that the vehicle shall be produced before the learned Magistrate as and when directed and also before the authorised officer as and when directed in pursuance of a valid final order to that effect is passed under Section 61 A of the Kerala Forest Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that it may be clarified that if the petitioner produces fixed deposit receipt with lien noted in favour of the court, the same may also be accepted as security. I clarify that it can be so done. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-