IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2268 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.2023/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------- SHYLAJA, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. BALASUBRAMANIAN KADAVATH KUDALLOOR VEEDU, ANAKKARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.P.S.SHEEJA RESPONDENT: COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRITHALA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.2268 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 30th day of October,2008 ORDER As per the order passed in C.M.P.776/2008 filed under section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner deposited Rs.35,000/- before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi. The lorry KLO/9- T.3087 was seized by the Police for transporting river sand illegally. Crime No.65/2008 of Thrithala Police Station was registered for the offence punishable under section 12 read with section 20 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Subsequently the District Collector passed an order of confiscation. According to petitioner, he remitted Rs.21,000/- as directed by the District Collector and he is entitled to get back the amount deposited before the court as directed by the order in C.M.P.776/2008. He filed C.M.P.2023/2008 for the above purpose. Learned Magistrate dismissed the CRRP 2268/2008 2 application holding that a final report is yet to be filed and before disposing the case it cannot be granted. Revision is filed challenging that order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The order in C.M.P.776/2008 was passed under section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure granting interim custody of the vehicle. Learned Magistrate was justified in holding that without a final report submitted by the Police as provided under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the amount deposited by the petitioner in court pursuant to the order passed under section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. Learned counsel submitted that a final report was submitted. Learned counsel also submitted that the order shows that petition could be allowed only after disposal of the case. It is pointed out that when confiscation order was passed by the District Collector, there is no necessity CRRP 2268/2008 3 for retaining the vehicle and therefore a final order could be passed. If a final report is filed by the police under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure learned Magistrate can pass an order allowing the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited, provided the vehicle is not necessary for the trial of the case. Petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application before the Magistrate. If a final report is filed Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006