Abdul Saleem v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2014-07-23
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is disposed of with the following modifications: (i) the petitioner shall deposit 15% of the value assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and execute a bond for the balance with two solvent sureties; (ii) the petitioner shall photograph the vehicle to prove identity and produce the same along with the bond; (iii) the order is subject to the final order of confiscation under the Sand Act; (iv) the petitioner shall not transfer or alienate the vehicle without prior court permission till disposal; (v) the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as required for trial. The matter is to be communicated to the lower court at the earliest.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Saleem

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. B. Shajimon

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. P. Maya

Case Synopsis & Summary

In this Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case, Abdul Saleem, the second accused in Crime No.896/2013 of Kasaragod Police Station, challenges two orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kasaragod under the Sand Act and CrPC Section 482: an interim custody order for his seized vehicle directing deposit of 50% of its value, and a subsequent order dismissing the application for non-compliance due to lack of time extension. The police had seized the vehicle for alleged fabrication of documents and offences under IPC Sections 468 and 471 with 34, and for violations under the Sand Act (Sections 20 and 21) and the Motor Vehicle Act. The petitioner argued that such a hefty deposit and the absence of a time limit violate the Sand Act and established decisions; the State argued otherwise. The High Court, citing Aboobacker v State of Kerala, held that Section 23A permits partial deposit and security by bond, not a lump-sum payment. It directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the value as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, and execute a bond for the balance with two solvent sureties, along with conditions including photographs of the vehicle for identity and non-transfer till disposal. The order also reserves the final confiscation decision by the competent authority and requires the vehicle be produced as needed. The petition is disposed of with these modifications, and communications are directed to the trial court.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 23A of the Sand ActSections 20 and 21 of the Sand ActSection 132(i) read with Section 179 of the Motor Vehicle ActSections 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that directing deposit of 50% of the vehicle's value under the interim custody order is contrary to the Sand Act and this Court's decisions; there is no time limit in Annexure A1; the court should not have dismissed Annexure A2 but should have allowed time or extended it.

Contentions of Respondents

The State submits that the petition lacks merit and justifies the deposit; the police had seized the vehicle for offences under the Sand Act, IPC, and MV Act.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala	2014 (3) KLT 26	Positive	Cited to support that Section 23A permits partial deposit with balance secured by bond, not a prohibitive lump-sum.
Sunderbai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat	AIR 2003 638	Positive	Cited to justify taking photographs of the vehicle to prove identity and use as evidence.

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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2014/1ST SRAVANA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4140 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 896/2013 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT ------------------** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 :** **--------------------------------------** **ABDUL SALEEM, 30 YRS., S/O. KUNHIFATHIMA, R/AT. OLAYAMSHIRIYA MANGALPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON** **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE :** **-----------------------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA SHO KASARAGOD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 4140 of 2014 () --------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : -------------------------------------------** |**ANNEXURE A1:**|**THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2013 IN CMP**| |---|---| ||**NO.8580/13 IN CRIME NO.896/2013 KASARAGOD POLICE**| ||**STATION ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE**| ||**COURT, KASARAGOD.**| |**ANNEXURE A2:**|**THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2014 IN C.M.P.**| ||**NO.8580/13 IN CRIME NO.896/2013 KASARAGOD POLICE**| ||**STATION, ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE**| ||**COURT, KASARAGOD.**| |**RESPONDENT(S)'**|**EXHIBITS : NIL**| |**-----------------------------------------------------------**|| **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE Mn** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.4140 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 23[rd] day of July, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod in C.M.P.8580/2013 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.896/2013 of Kasaragod police station alleging offences under Sections 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 20 and 21 of Kerala Protection or River Bank and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sand Act') and Section 132(i) read with Section 179 of Motor Vehicle Act. The petitioner's vehicle No.KL-14-J-8678 was seized by the police and he filed C.M.P.No.8580/2013 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod for interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Code and the learned Magistrate has allowed the application by Annexure-A1 order on condition to deposit 50% of the value of the vehicle and due to financial difficulty, he could not deposit the amount. But, later by Crl.M.C.No.4140 of 2014 2 Annexure-A2 order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application for non compliance of the condition. In fact, there was no time limit provided in the order. So, he was waiting for raising the amount to deposit. Now the petitioner challenges both the orders by filing this petition. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that directing to deposit 50% of the value of the vehicle is against the provisions of the Sand Act and the decisions of this Court as well. Further, since there is no time limit provided, the court below should not have dismissed the application, instead of waited for compliance of the order and if not complied, the order need not have been implemented instead of dismissing the same. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 6. It is an admitted fact that the Kasaragod police had seized the vehicle belonging to the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 20 and 21 of the Sand Act and also on verification of the records, when it is found that the documents were fabricated, offences under Sections 468 and 471 read Crl.M.C.No.4140 of 2014 3 with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code and also Section 132(i) read with Section 179 of the Motor Vehicle Act were also incorporated and a case was registered as Crime No.896/2013 of Kasaragod police station and the vehicle was seized and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.8580/2013 for interim custody and vide Annexure-A1 order, the learned Magistrate allowed the application on condition to deposit 50% of the value of the vehicle. But, later since he has not paid the amount and no application for extension of time was filed, by Annexure-A2 order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application. 7. It is also seen from Annexure-A1 order that there is no time limit provided and it was only posted for report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. It is not clear from Annexure-A2 order as to whether Motor Vehicle Inspector's report was obtained assessing the value of the vehicle so as to enable the party to ascertain the amount to be deposited but instead that, the petition was seen dismissed on the ground that no application for extension of time for making the deposit was made, which appears to be illegal. Further, Section 23 A of the Sand Act Crl.M.C.No.4140 of 2014 4 provides power for the Magistrate to release the vehicle on interim custody subject to provision to Section 23 A of the Act. This Court has considered the impact of Section 23 A in the decision reported in **Aboobacker v. State of Kerala** (2014 (3) KLT 26) and observed that it is not necessary to direct deposit of huge amount, but certain portion can be directed to be deposited and for the balance amount, bond can be directed to be deposited. So considering the above decision, this petition can be disposed of as follows: i. The petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of the value assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector for the vehicle and execute a bond for the balance amount with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. ii. Further, the petitioner shall take photographs of the vehicle to prove the identity of the vehicle later as provided in **Sunderbai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujara** t (AIR 2003 638) so as to use the same as evidence later and produce the same along with the bond to be executed . iii. The order passed will be subject to the final order of confiscation, if any to be passed by the appropriate authority, Crl.M.C.No.4140 of 2014 5 under the Sand Act. iv. The petitioner shall not transfer or alienate the vehicle without getting prior permission from the lower court till the disposal of the case. v. The petitioner shall undertake that he will produce the vehicle as and when required by the court below for the purpose of trial. With the above modifications, this petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below at the earliest. ## **Sd/-** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4140 of 2014 6