IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4317 of 2008() ------------------------- CRMP.4527/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.E.MATHEW, S/O.K.M.EAPPEN, KARAKKATTU VEEDU, UPPUKUZHI, CHALLYAKKARA, EDAMON VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT: ---------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURTOF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING FOREST RANGE OFICER PATHANAMTHITTA RANGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R BASANT, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C.4317 OF 2008 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 04th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner claims to be the owner of a vehicle which was allegedly involved in the commission of offences under the Kerala Forest Act and Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The petitioner`s application for release of the vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order. He has come to this court with a prayer to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the order and to direct release of the vehicle to him. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the application. 3. Reference to the vital facts may be relevant and crucial. Petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle. One Mathew Scaria is the registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was earlier involved in an offence u/s Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Sand Act and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the registered owner in OR 01/08 subject to the conditions of the bond which he had executed along with sureties. The vehicle was released to the registered owner. It is submitted at the Bar that the conditions imposed, included the condition that the registered owner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the court and that he should not use the vehicle for commission of any crime. 3. Be that as it may, as the vehicle was involved in yet another crime OR 05/08 i.e. the instant one it was seized on 28.02.08, it is alleged that the registered owner of the vehicle, to whom the vehicle was released by the court, was himself making use of the vehicle to commit the offence on 28.02.08 4. The vehicle was seized. Long later the petitioner had come before the court with a prayer that the vehicle may be released to him. How did he acquire rights over the vehicle from the registered owner? Petitioner contends that as per annexure A1 he has acquired rights over the vehicle from the registered owner. 4. The learned Magistrate was evidently not satisfied with the explanation offered. The registered owner was not expected to part with possession of the vehicle. He was not expected to use the vehicle for commission of any offence. On 28.02.08 allegedly he was found to make use of the vehicle illegally, contrary to the the terms of the bond executed by him. It is such registered owner who contended later through the petitioner that vehicle had been transferred to the petitioner on 21.02.08 - 7 days prior to the date of commission of the alleged offence. 5. I find merit in the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is only a name lender to the registered owner to justify the claim for release of the vehicle now. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that proceedings u/s 51A of Forest Act are already initiated and according to the learned Public Prosecutor the registered owner has not appeared before the authority u/s 61 A of Kerala Forest Act. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that expeditious steps are being taken to complete the proceeding u/s 61 A Kerala Forest Act. 6. In these circumstances, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction available u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner or the registered owner should certainly approach the authority under Section 61 A Kerala Forest Act 7. With the above observations this Criminal MC is dismissed. Needless to say authority u/s 61 A of the Kerala Forest Act shall ensure that the proceedings is completed as expeditiously as possible. (R BASANT, JUDGE) KMD