IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 103 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CMP.NO.4373/2008 OF JFCM, KUNNAMANGALAM PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SULAIMAN, MANJORAMMAL, PULIKKOTH DESOM, MADAVOOR AMSOM, PADANILAM, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.MANJU M. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- TH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.103 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle which is allegedly involved in the commission of offences under the 'The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He faces allegations in a crime registered in respect of that offence. Petitioner's vehicle was seized by the police. The seizure was reported to the District Collector. According to the petitioner, the sand in question found in his vehicle is not sand coming within the purview of the Act. He raised his objections before the District Collector and the District Collector by order dated 15/9/2008 imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- and a further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- being the value of the vehicle. It was directed that on remitting the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/-, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner. 2. Claiming to be aggrieved by that order of the District Collector passed under the Act, the petitioner came to this court and filed writ petition as W.P.C.No.28117/08. That writ petition was admitted and interim release of the vehicle was directed on Crl.M.C.No. 103/09 2 condition that the petitioner must furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.2.25 lakhs. The petitioner applied for modification of that condition. That petition was dismissed. Thereafter it is submitted that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Division Bench against that order. That appeal has been dismissed. Thus the position is that the order of the District Collector was challenged before this court and such challenge was pending consideration of a Bench of this court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at that stage, the petitioner had sought permission to withdraw the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed “without prejudice”. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 4. It is thereafter that the petitioner claims that he went before the learned Magistrate staking claim for release of the lorry under Section 457 Cr.P.C. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has directed release on identical conditions as were imposed by this court earlier. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 5. I am at a loss to understand the propriety of the petitioner going before the learned Magistrate to seek release of the vehicle under Section 457 Cr.P.C. Already orders under the Crl.M.C.No. 103/09 3 Act has been passed by the District Collector. That order was challenged. The writ petition challenging the order has been dismissed as withdrawn. It means that the said order by the District Collector has become final. The petitioner can claim release of the vehicle only under the said order passed by the District Collector and cannot simultaneously claim release from the learned Magistrate. Having chosen to give up the challenge against the order passed by the District Collector, there is absolutely no merit or justification in the petitioner going before the learned Magistrate with a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C and the learned Magistrate granting release under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The order of the District Collector Ext.A2, it is evident, has become final now. The petitioner cannot claim release of the vehicle except under that order. 6. This Crl.M.C is in these circumstances dismissed. It is further made clear that the vehicle shall not be released to the petitioner on the basis of the impugned order. The same shall be released to him only subject to the conditions imposed in and as per Annexure A2 order. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No. 103/09 4 Crl.M.C.No. 103/09 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008