IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3460 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.2939/2008 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- SUBAIR, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 27 YEARS, PUTHANPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, KOODALLUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRUTHALA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3460 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 28th day of October,2008 ORDER Petitioner is challenging the dismissal of CMP 2939/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi. That petition was filed under section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of lorry KLO/7F-9403 seized for transporting river sand. Petitioner contended that he is the owner of the vehicle by virtue of an agreement dated 26.8.2008 executed by the registered owner and he is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle. Learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that a report is filed before the District Collector for confiscation proceedings against the vehicle for illegally transporting river sand and therefore interim custody of the vehicle cannot be granted to the revision petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner CRRP 3460/2008 2 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Even if no report is filed by the Police with regard to the seizure of the vehicle for illegal transport of river sand as provided under section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Magistrate is competent to grant interim custody of the vehicle under section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore the order dismissing the application for the reason that a report is filed before the District Collector for confiscation is not sustainable especially when there is no case that a final order was passed by the District Collector. 4. But the question is whether petitioner is entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle. Though petitioner produced a copy of an agreement alleged to have been executed by the registered owner of the vehicle, the agreement produced cast suspicion whether it was executed by the registered owner or somebody else. The name of the father of the registered owner seen in Annexure A3 copy of CRRP 3460/2008 3 the registeration certificate is different from the name of the first party to the agreement. In such circumstance, learned Magistrate is directed to consider the application afresh and pass fresh order in accordance with law. Revision Petition is allowed. The order in CMP 2939/2008 is set aside. C.M.P.2939/2008 is restored to file. Learned Magistrate is directed to reconsider the application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006