IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3724 of 2007(A) ------------------------- CMP.1220/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI .................... PETITIONER: ------------ T.B.BABU, AGED 42 YEARS, THEKKUMALAKKUNNEL HOUSE, MURIKKASSERY KARA, VATHIKKUDI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 3724 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008. ORDER Petitioner, who is the registered owner of a mini lorry bearing registration No. KL-6B/7941 involved in O.R. No. 13/2005 of Forest Range Office, Adimali registered for an offence punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and which vehicle was seized by the Forest officials and produced before the Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar, who is the authorised officer under Section 61 A of the Kerala Forest Act, sought interim custody of the vehicle by filing C.M.P. No. 1220/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Adimali. That application was dismissed as per order dated 16.06.2007 inter alia holding that pending finalisation of the confiscation proceedings the authorised officer has got the power to release the vehicle seized. The decision reported in John v. D.F.O, Kottayam (1996(2) KLT 984) was relied on. That apart, this Court has also in the order dated 22.01.2008 in Crl. M.C. No. 42/2008 held that pending finalisation of the confiscation CRL. M.C.NO. 3724/2007 : 2 : proceedings under Section 61 A of the Forest Act the Authorised officer can exercise the power under Section 53 of the Act and release the vehicle subject to execution of a bond as indicated by Section 53 and that in the light of the decision of the apex Court reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638), the departmental authorities should express serious concern for vehicles seized and which are lying exposed to the ambient weather and getting deteriorated in value. Hence, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the authorised officer for interim custody subject to finalisation of confiscation proceedings, this M.C is dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C.NO. 3724/2007 : 3 :