IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4052 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.1055/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PONNANI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------- MOIDUTTY.P.T, S/O. HAMZA, AGED 50 YEARS, PALLITHAZHATH HOUSE, PUDUPONNANI, PONNANI SOUTH.P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.A.PREMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.4052 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 15th day of December,2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani in C.M.P 1055/2008 whereunder his application filed under section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of vehicle (lorry) bearing reg.No.KL-54-4507 seized by Tahsildar, Ponnani for illegal transportation of river sand was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application for the reason that revision petitioner had earlier illegally transported the river sand in the same vehicle on 10.1.2008 and revision petitioner was directed to remit a fine of Rs.80,000/- and still the vehicle was used for the CRRP 4052/2008 2 same offence and therefore it cannot be released. Learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner was having a valid pass and this aspect was not taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate. 4. In view of the fact that the vehicle was earlier involved in the same offence and a fine of Rs.80,000/- was realised from the petitioner, learned Magistrate was justified in not granting interim custody of the vehicle. But considering the fact that District Collector has not passed any confiscation order so far, revision petitioner is entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle on conditions. 5. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani is directed to give interim custody of the vehicle to the revision petitioner on depositing of Rs.1,00,000/- and on executing a bond undertaking not to transfer the vehicle and not to transport any sand, whether legal or illegal, and to produce the vehicle before the District Collector as and when called for. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- CRRP 4052/2008 3 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006