IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3716 of 2010() ----------------------- CMP.3588/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR .................. PETITIONER / PETITIONER : ------------------------------------- RAJAN, S/O.VELUTHAKUNJU, KIZHAKKEKARA VEEDU, URUKUNNU MURI, THENMALA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT : ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THENMALA. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3716 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Tata Mini Lorry KL-03/S 4014, involved in O.R.No. 9/2010 of Thenmala Forest Range, registered for the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) and (v) of Kerala Forest Act, was seized by the forest officials on the allegation that vehicle was used for illegally transporting river sand collected from Kallada River flowing through the reserve forest. Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.3588/2010 under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the vehicle. Learned Magistrate, by Annexure-I order, dismissed the petition finding that interim custody of the vehicle was granted in C.M.P.5755/2009 and again, a similar offence was committed using the same vehicle and thereby violated the earlier order. This petition is filed challenging Annexure-I order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is prepared to deposit the CRMC 3716/10 2 actual value of the vehicle before the learned Magistrate and if the vehicle is kept in the custody of the court or the officials, its value will be deteriorated. 4. When confiscation proceedings were initiated, normally, interim custody is not to be granted by the court, but by the authority competent to confiscate the vehicle. In view of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner is prepared to deposit the value of the vehicle before the learned Magistrate to obtain interim custody, Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Forest Offences), Punalur is directed to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, on depositing the actual value of the vehicle, as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. It is also made clear that if the vehicle is used again for committing similar offences, forest officials are entitled to seize the vehicle and confiscate the same and in that event, petitioner is not entitled to apply for interim custody of the vehicle. Petition is disposed. 30th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv