IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3781 of 2011() ------------------------- CMP.2650/2011 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAPPANA .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :- --------------------------------------- M.G.VISWAMBHARAN, S/O.GOPALAN, MUKULEL HOUSE, MATTUKATTA KARA, AYYAPPANCOVIL VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :- ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt CRL.M.C.No. 3781 OF 2011 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Annexure I :- Copy of the mahazar dated 24/9/2011. Annexure II :- Copy of the seizure report dated 24/9/2011. Annexure III :- Copy of the application dated 3/10/2011. Annexure IV :- Copy of the order dated 3/10/2011 in C.M.P.No.2650/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3781 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December 2011 O R D E R Petitioner's application for release of a lorry bearing No.KL 37-4745 was dismissed by the learned Magistrate since it was stated that the forest officials were initiating action for confiscation of the vehicle and the timber/wooden logs carried in the said lorry. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per Annexure-I mahazar and Annexure-III report, the property where from the trees were cut was having only “status of forest”; a land where cardamom cultivation was not there. This is taken objection to by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the Act does not envisage a land having “status of forest”; either it should be a forest or it should be a private land. Whatever that be, if there is a dispute as to whether it is a forest or a private land it may have to be concluded after Crl.M.C. No.3781 of 2011 -: 2 :- the investigation/enquiry is conducted. 2. Now, I find that there may not be any purpose in keeping the lorry idle for months together since it is likely to be ruined by exposing to sun and rain. The said lorry is to be given interim custody to the petitioner on production of documents showing his ownership over the lorry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a poor man and he has no means of livelihood otherthan the said lorry. Considering all the aspects, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of as stated below :- (i) The lorry in question shall be released to the petitioner on production of all the vehicular documents; and (ii) On executing a bond for Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount. The sureties shall produce original title deeds and latest land revenue receipts. Crl.M.C. No.3781 of 2011 -: 3 :- (iii) Petitioner shall also file an affidavit stating that he will not transfer possession of the vehicle and that he will produce the vehicle before the learned Magistrate or before the Forest Officer for the purpose of confiscation if any. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt