IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3489 of 2009() ------------------------------ CMP.1701/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------------- VEERANKUTTY, S/O.SAITHALIKUTTY, AGED 49 YEARS, ACHARATHU HOUSE, POST THALAKKASSERY, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRITHALA POLICE STATION, TRITHALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3489 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the registered owner of lorry bearing registration No.KL 09/S-3116. On 23/1/2009 the lorry was found transporting red earth. The first respondent seized the same alleging that the transport of the earth was in violation of the provisions of Kerala Mines & Mineral Concession Rules,1967. Thereupon the revision petitioner approached this court in Criminal R.P.No.834 of 2009. This court by Annexure A2 order dated 27/3/2009 ordered to release the vehicle on interim custody on conditions. One of the conditions was that the revision petitioner shall deposit Rs.25,000/- before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi. He complied with all the conditions contained in Ext.A2 order and got the vehicle released. Thereafter the second respondent initiated proceedings under the earlier mentioned rules and by Annexure A4 order dated 3/5/2009 a fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed. It was also ordered that the vehicle shall be released to the revision Crl.R.P.No.3489 of 2009 2 petitioner. Thus he is entitled to get the vehicle released. Thereupon, the revision petitioner approached the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi with a petition, copy of which is marked as Annexure A6 for refund of the amount deposited in pursuance of Annexure A2 order issued from this court. The learned magistrate by Annexure A7 order dated 18/8/2009 dismissed the petition. The order of the lower court reads as follows:- “This petition is filed U/s 457 Cr. P.C 2. Amount deposited as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. Hence this petition is dismissed.” The above order would show that the petition was dismissed solely for the reason that the amount was deposited as per Annexure A2 order by this court. But having the matter finally disposed by Annexure A4 order the revision petitioner is entitled to get custody of the vehicle as per the said orders and any order passed by this court while granting interim custody would cease to exist. In the above circumstance the revision petitioner is entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him in pursuance of Annexure A2 order. In this view the Crl.R.P.No.3489 of 2009 3 Annexure A7 order is not sustainable. The petition is liable to be allowed. In the result the revision petition is allowed. While reversing the order impugned, the petition before the lower court would stand allowed. The deposit made by the revision petitioner in pursuance of Annexure A2 shall be refunded to the revision petitioner. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj