IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3238 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.3310/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- FIROZ KHAN C.T., S/O KUNHARAMU, POOVATHIKKAL, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -31. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVEENDRA BABU FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3238 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is challenging the order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Manjeri in C.M.P.3310 of 2008, a petition filed by him under section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of lorry KL-11C/4617, which was seized by the police for illegal transportation of river sand. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application finding that the very same vehicle was seized earlier on 13.12.2007 and was granted on interim custody as per order in C.M.P.254 of 2008 and the District Collector had ordered the revision petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards the river management fund while disposing the lorry and the lorry was again used for the same purpose and therefore it cannot be released. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that if interim custody is not granted, the lorry will get ruined by keeping it in CRRP 3238/2008 2 sun and rain and it is not advantageous for either the State or the revision petitioner and therefore it may be grated on interim custody imposing any condition. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the vehicle was used twice for illegal transportation of river sand and in such circumstances learned Magistrate was justified in not granting interim custody of the vehicle again. 4. Revision petitioner was granted interim custody earlier on condition that he shall not use the vehicle for illegal transportation of river sand. It is in violation of that condition, revision petitioner again used the vehicle for illegal transportation of sand, which was seized by the police. In such circumstances, the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be illegal. But considering the fact by retaining the vehicle no advantage will be derived, Magistrate is directed to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the revision petitioner on the following conditions:- Revision petitioner shall deposit Rs.60,000/- before the Magistrate. He shall execute a bond with two solvent sureties undertaking not to use the vehicle for transportation of sand whether legally or illegally. He shall not transfer the vehicle till the proceedings initiated by the District CRRP 3238/2008 3 Collector is closed. He shall make available the vehicle to the District Collector as and when asked for. Revision is disposed of accordingly. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-