IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1760 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.306/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS I, PEERUMEDU .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------------------ KUTTAPPAN, S/O.KUTTY, KANAMTHOTTIL VEEDU, KARUNAPURAM KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KUMILY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.M.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ====================================== CRL.R.P. NO.1760 OF 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 3rd day of June 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the father of the accused in O.R.No.6 of 2008 of the Forest Range, Kumily, which is a case registered under Section 5(2) read with section 9 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 and Rule 23(1) of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, moved JFCM I, Peermade for interim release of the jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-3/B-603 of which he claims to be the registered owner. The said application filed as CMP 306/2008 under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that confiscation proceedings under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act are pending. 2. Kerala Preservation of Trees Act 1986 is a self contained legislation, wherein the seizure of the forest produce as well as vehicle is provided under Section 13 of the said Act. Section- 14 of the said Act provides for release of the vehicle seized under Section 13 by the authorised officer on the compliance of the CRRP 1760/2008 2 conditions stipulated therein. Section 15 of the Act empowers the Magistrate to dispose of the properties including vehicles, in accordance with law. No power for interim release in the Magistrate can be read into Section 15 of the Act. The only authority competent to release the vehicle is the authorised officer, in view of section 14 of the Act. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Magistrate in dismissing the application for interim custody filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C.. This revision, which is not maintainable, is accordingly dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the authorised officer under Section 14 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act 1986, which is the statute under which the case was registered against the petitioner's son. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/