IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 1906 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29490/2010 Dated 29/09/2010 .................... APPELLANT: -------------- ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.ENIKUTTY, ALUNGAL HOUSE, PERINTHALLOORE P.O., TRIPRANGODE, TIRUR TALUK, R.C.OWNER OF KL.10.C, 9411-TATA MINI LORRY). BY ADV. MR. K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION, TIRUR, TALU, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 021. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR-676 101. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. K. MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.A. No. 1906 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 7th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT J. Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 29th September, 2010 the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 29490 of 2010 has preferred this appeal. 2. The petitioner is the registered owner of vehicle bearing No. KL 10 C 9411, a Tata Mini Lorry. An FIR No. 143/2010 dated 29.03.2010 was registered in the Kalapakanchery Police Station in Malappuram District under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act read with Sections 132 and 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The substance of the FIR is that, the vehicle was found proceeding at a very high speed at around 6.30 A.M. on 29.03.2010. When the S.I. of Police of the above mentioned police station along with two other constables, who were on patrol duty, tried to stop the vehicle, the driver did not obey the command of the police. Eventually the vehicle was located at the residence of the appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle. The same was seized under mahazar. W.A No. 1906 of 2010 :2: 3. The writ petition is filed praying that the F.I.R. be quashed. The prayers in the writ petition is as follows: (i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the entire prosecution and other proceedings in Exhibit P1 FIR and to order release of the vehicle to the petitioner forthwith. (ii) To grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case. 4. The appellant seeks such a prayer on the ground that there was not even a pinch of river sand in the vehicle, when the vehicle was seized. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the appeal. 5. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment. The assertion of the appellant that there was not even a pinch of river sand in the vehicle at the time of seizure of the vehicle does not necessarily mean that the vehicle was not carrying the river sand on 29.03.2010 at about 6.30 A.M. The allegation that the driver of the vehicle did not stop the vehicle in spite of being called upon to stop by the police coupled with the allegation that the vehicle was involved in illegal transportation of river sand prima facie requires the matter to be adjudicated upon evidence in appropriate trial in accordance with law. In our opinion, the learned Judge rightly dismissed W.A No. 1906 of 2010 :3: the writ petition. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd