IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1690 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------------ CMP.3075/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------------------- VINEESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ASHOKAN, MINNUMPURATHU HOUSE, PANAVALLIKARA, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009 ALONG WITH CRL. R.P. NO.1691 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NOS.1690 & 1691 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- As the facts and law involved in these proceedings are common the revisions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Public prosecutor takes notice for respondent. 3. Challenge in these proceedings in revision is to two separate orders passed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom refusing to grant interim custody of two country boats seized by the police for the alleged violation of the provision of the Protection of the River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. Learned magistrate refused to grant interim custody of the country boats in the light of the decision in Showkathali v. Tahsildar (2009(1) KLT 640) where, after referring to the Bench decision of this Court learned Single Judge observed that as the position of law as explained now stands magistrate could not entertain applications for interim custody in such cases and whenever such applications came before the magistrate, the same shall not be entertained. Learned counsel submitted that correctness of the decision in Showkathali's case is pending consideration before the Division Bench. Learned counsel also submitted that though police have reported the matter to the CRL. R.P. Nos.1690 & 1691 of 2009 -: 2 :- District Collector concerned, no action is taken so far and if the country boats are kept idle, the same will be damaged. 4. As the position now stands magistrates are not permitted to entertain applications for interim custody of vehicles involved in such cases. As such learned magistrate is justified in disallowing the applications. I do not find anything illegal or irregular in the orders under challenge. 5. At this stage learned counsel submitted that though police has reported the matter to the District Collector concerned, no action is taken so far. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioners to move the District Collector concerned seeking appropriate relief and if any such application is filed, the District Collector shall dispose of the application as provided under law at the earliest. Crl.Revision Petitions are dismissed with the above observations and direction. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv