High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of

Abdul Salam B.K. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 4794 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date
2014-08-22
Court Decision / Holding
With the above modification of the conditions imposed, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of.
Final Disposition
Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Abdul Salam B.K.

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. T. Madhu

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor SMT. Sareena George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, in CMP 4564/2014 in Crime No. 442/2014 of Hosdurg Police Station, under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The petitioner Abdul Salam B.K., owner of a Mini Lorry KL-11P-5776, contends that the vehicle was seized for alleged transport of river sand without a permit and that the magistrate granted interim custody subject to conditions: a bond for Rs. 75,000; deposit of Rs. 22,500 (30% of the vehicle’s value); and a bank guarantee for Rs. 52,500, along with production of original title deed and valuation certificate, Panjanama, original RC and insurance, and the vehicle’s availability for confiscation proceedings. The petitioner argues that post-amendment Act XV/2013 introducing Section 23A (effective 25.11.2012), the lower court’s conditioning is improper. The counsel for the petitioner relies on Shan V. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 413) and Sujith V. State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLT 547) to challenge the conditions, while citing Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KLT 26) for liberal construction of security. The Public Prosecutor contends there is no illegality and that the court has discretion to impose reasonable conditions. The High Court, noting the new Section 23A and following Aboobacker, holds that security must be liberally construed to meet ends of justice and accordingly modifies the conditions: deposit Rs. 20,000 and bond for Rs. 55,000 with two solvent sureties, while other conditions remain. The case is disposed of with these modifications and the office is directed to communicate the order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 457 CrPCKerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 - Sections 20 and 21Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 - Section 23AAmendment Act XV/2013 (to the extent of Section 23A)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Liberally construed security deposits/bonds to meet ends of justice
  • Ends of justice (doctrine)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that the interim custody conditions imposed by the JFCM-I Hosdurg were not proper in light of the amendment by Section 23A of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (Act XV of 2013) effective from 25.11.2012. He submits that the lower court relied on earlier Kerala High Court decisions (Shan v. State of Kerala and Sujith v. State of Kerala) and failed to apply the liberal construction principle emphasized in Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (2014), which allows a more flexible approach to security by deposit and bond. He requests relaxation of the deposit and bond terms and argues for interim custody to be governed by the amended framework.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/Public Prosecutor maintains that there is no illegality in the magistrate’s order and that the court possesses discretion to impose reasonable conditions to safeguard ends of justice and ensure successful confiscation proceedings under the Act. They contend the security measures, including deposits and bank guarantees, are within the scope of the court’s discretion and necessary to balance the legitimate interests of the vehicle owner with public interest and proper enforcement of the Act.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Shan V. State of Kerala2010 (3) KLT 413Mentioned OnlyCited by lower court and referenced in the judgment; not relied upon as a controlling authority for the outcome in light of Section 23A amendments.
Sujith V. State of Kerala2012 (2) KLT 547Mentioned OnlyCited as part of the lower court’s reasoning; the High Court notes the need to consider the amended Section 23A, and does not adopt their conclusions.
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala2014 (3) KLT 26PositiveCited and applied to support liberal construction of security deposits/bonds to meet ends of justice and justify modifying the interim custody conditions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Salam B.K. v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2014/31ST SRAVANA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4794 of 2014** **---------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 4564/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COUR-I, HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 442/2014 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD** **------------** **PETITIONER:** **------------------** **ABDUL SALAM B.K. S/O. SAFILA, RESIDING AT KARTHIKKUNNU, ARAYI, KANHANGAD SOUTH P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU** **RESPONDENT/STATE: --------------------------------** **THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 4794 of 2014** **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-4-2014 IN C.M.P.NO. 4564/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, HOSDURG.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES** **-------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **K. Ramakrishnan, J. ============================== Crl.M.C.No.4794 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 22[nd] day of August, 2014.** ## **O R D E R** This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, in C.M.P.No.4564/2014 in Crime No.442/2014 of Hosdurg Police station under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the registered owner of a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KL-11P-5776, which was seized by the respondent on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transporting river sand without valid permit and a crime was registered as Crime No.442/2014 of Hosdurg Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 20 and 21 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.4564/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned magistrate by Annexure-AI order granted interim custody on conditions inter-alia that: Crl.M.C.No.4794 of 2014 : 2 : 1. Petitioner shall execute bond for Rs. 75,000/-. 2. Petitioner has to deposit Rs.22,500/- being the 30% of total value of vehicle. 3. Petitioner shall produce bank guarantee or execute a bond for Rs.52,500/- for the balance amount with original title deed and valuation certificate showing value of the property issued by revenue authority. The above conditions are being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition. 3. Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact the condition imposed by the court below is not proper in view of inclusion of Section '23A' to the above said Act by Amendment Act XV/2013 which came into force from 25.11.2012. Further, this court in another case granted custody by executing a bond alone. Crl.M.C.No.4794 of 2014 : 3 : 6. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that, there is no illegality in the order passed. A discretion has been given to the court to impose any condition. 7. It is an admitted fact that Hosdurg police had seized the vehicle with No.KL-11-P-5776, which belongs to the petitioner, alleging that it was used for the commission of the offence under the above said Act. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner had filed an application for interim custody under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by Annexure-AI order with following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall execute bond for Rs. 75,000/-. 2. Petitioner has to deposit Rs.22,500/- 30% of total value of vehicle. 3. Petitioner shall produce bank guarantee or execute a bond for Rs.52,500/- for the balance amount with original title deed and valuation certificate showing value of the property issued by revenue authority. 4. Petitioner shall produce Panjanama. 5. Petitioner shall produce original RC and Insurance of the vehicle for verification. 6. Petitioner is directed to produce the Crl.M.C.No.4794 of 2014 : 4 : vehicle as and when required for the confiscation proceedings. 8. Condition Nos. 2 & 3 are being challenged by the petitioner now. It appears that, the learned magistrate had, keeping in mind the decision of this court in **Shan V. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 413)** and **Sujith V. State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLT 547),** imposed these conditions and the present Section 23A, which has been incorporated by Amendment Act XV/2013, which came into force with effect from 25.11.2012 has not been taken note of by the court below. 9. After the above decisions, the Act has been amended by incorporating Section 23A, which deals with the procedure to be followed after confiscation, and also power of the court for giving interim custody. This court has considered that provision in **(2014 (3) KLT 26) Aboobacker v. State of Kerala** , wherein this court has held that: “The security mentioned therein, has to be liberally construed and a portion of the amount can be directed to be deposited and for the balance amount, the personal bond with sufficient sureties can be directed to be executed and that will be Crl.M.C.No.4794 of 2014 : 5 : sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice”. 10. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision, the condition imposed by the court below, directing the petitioner to deposit 30% value of the vehicle and furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount can be set aside and the same can be modified as follows: The petitioner shall deposit Rs.20,000/- out of the value assessed by the Motor Vehicle Department and also execute a bond for the balance amount with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of that court will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice. So condition Nos. 2 & 3 imposed by the court below are set aside and the same are modified, retaining the other conditions as follows: The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.20,000/- out of the value assessed for the vehicle, and execute a bond for the balance amount of Rs.55,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. Further, the release of the vehicle will be till the completion of confiscation proceedings under this Act. Other conditions imposed by the court below is retained. Crl.M.C.No.4794 of 2014 : 6 : With the above modification of the conditions imposed, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately. Sd/- **K. Ramakrishnan, Judge.** Bb _[True copy]_ _P.A to Judge_