IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1444 of 2011() ------------------------- CMP.1630/2011 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, WADAKKANCHERY .................... (OR.NO.2/2011 OF VAZHANI FOREST STATION, THRISSUR) ..... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- KUNJUMON, S/O.PAULOSE, POTTARAKKAN VEEDU, ANKAMALI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (OR NO.2/2011 OF VAZHANI FOREST STATION, THRISSUR). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1444 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the third accused in O.R.No.2 of 2011 of Vazhani Forest Station, Thrissur for offence punishable under Section 27(1)(c)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. Allegation is that human excreta was dumped in the forest by transporting it in vehicle bearing No.KL-41/A-8747 on the date of incident. The Forest Officials seized the vehicle on 21.02.2011. Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1630 of 2011 before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkanchery for interim custody of the vehicle. Learned Magistrate vide Annexure-I, order dated May 10, 2011 has rejected the application observing that confiscation proceeding has been initiated with respect to the vehicle and that the said proceeding should be allowed to continue. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. No provision ousting jurisdiction of the criminal court to grant interim custody in a case of this nature for the reason that confiscation proceeding has been initiated, or authority taking such a view is brought to my notice. Ouster of jurisdiction of the court cannot also be readily inferred unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that report to initiate confiscation proceeding is already given to the Authorised Officer. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, no confiscation Crl.MC No.1444 of 2011 2 proceeding could be initiated. But that question need not be agitated or decided in this proceeding. Normally, it will take some time to complete the confiscation proceeding. As I stated, the vehicle was seized on 21.02.2011 and if it is allowed to remain idle it will get damaged and lost. The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2003 (2) KLT 1089) has prescribed the guidelines with respect to interim custody of vehicles seized for being involved in criminal cases. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that interim custody of the vehicle can be given to the petitioner but, subject to conditions. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed in the following lines: The order under challenge is set aside, C.M.P.No.1630 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkanchery will stand allowed and the learned Magistrate shall give interim custody of the vehicle involved to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: i. Petitioner shall produce the vehicle before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkancherry or the Authorised Officer as the case may be as and when directed, in the same condition as it is taken delivery. Crl.MC No.1444 of 2011 3 ii. Petitioner shall not, during the period of its interim custody transfer ownership or possession or otherwise dismantle the vehicle. iii. Petitioner shall produce before the learned Magistrate photographs of the vehicle taken in different angles showing its registration number as well and attested by him as true copy before getting release of the vehicle. iv. Petitioner shall not in the course of trial dispute identity of the vehicle. v. Petitioner shall use the vehicle only in accordance with the valid vehicular documents. vi. The vehicle shall not be used for commission of any offence. It is directed that if the vehicle is involved in any other case hereafter during the period of interim custody that will be sufficient to cancel the order granted hereby. vii. Petitioner shall execute a bond for the value of vehicle (as may be got assessed by the learned Magistrate through appropriate authority) with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate undertaking to comply with the above conditions. viii. Petitioner shall produce the vehicular documents before the learned Magistrate in original and satisfy that he is entitled to get custody of the vehicle. Crl.MC No.1444 of 2011 4 ix. Petitioner shall also produce attested photocopy of the vehicular documents which the learned Magistrate shall retain in custody and the original documents shall be released to the petitioner while releasing the vehicle to the petitioner. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks