IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4620 of 2010 ---------------------------------- [CRL.RP.NO.103/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR, CMP.NOS. 1176/2010 & 2206/2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR] .................... PETITIONER/RIVISION PETITIONER/CLAIM PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HINEESH, AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.LOHITHAKSHAN, KALLADATHIL HOUSE, THRIKKUR VILLAGE,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. RANGE OFFICER,FOREST RANGE OFFICE, PATTIKKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4620 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 24th November, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner filed C.M.P.2206/2009 before Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the vehicle No.KL-45.B.9479 contending that he is the registered owner of the vehicle. By Annexure-2 order learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that as the vehicle is seized for the offence under the Wild Life Protection Act, as provided under Section 39(d), interim custody cannot be granted. Petitioner thereafter filed C.M.P.1176/2010 for the same relief. By Annexure-3 order petition was dismissed on the ground that if that petition is to be Crmc 4620/10 2 allowed Annexure-2 order is to be reviewed. Petitioner challenged that order before Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.R.P.103/2010. Learned Sessions Judge finding that as Annexure-2 order stands learned Magistrate could not have allowed the subsequent application, dismissed the revision finding that there is no illegality. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexures-A2 to A4 orders. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. I find no illegality to quash either Annexure-3 or Annexure-4 order. But Annexure-2 order is apparently illegal. Learned Magistrate did not consider the claim of the petitioner, but rejected the claim on the ground that as provided under Section 39(d) of Crmc 4620/10 3 Wild Life Protection Act, application will not lie. Learned Magistrate failed to take note of the fact that property would vest with the Government only on confiscation. Unfortunately decision of this Court in Mathew v. Range Officer (2004 (2) KLT 865) was not brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate. Petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 order is quashed. C.M.P.2206/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thrissur is remanded to Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thrissur for fresh disposal in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.