Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCriminal Misc. Case disposed of

Aboobacker Sidhique K.H. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRMC.4003 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date
2014-07-17
Court Decision / Holding
The court, on account of the amendments and supporting precedents, modifies the lower court’s security conditions: deposit 10% of the vehicle’s value (₹40,000) and execute a bond for the balance ₹3,60,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum; release of the vehicle remains withheld until completion of the confiscation proceedings; all other conditions remain in force. The case is disposed of with these directions.
Final Disposition
Criminal Misc. Case disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Aboobacker Sidhique K.H.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Smt. Hemalatha
  • • Sri. Binu George

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor (P. Maya)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRMC 4003 of 2014) filed by the registered owner challenging the interim custody order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod in CMP 6862/2013 under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The vehicle KL-14-J/8813 was seized on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand in violation of the Act, and interim custody was granted on conditions including deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value, a bank guarantee for the balance, and two solvent sureties. The petitioner contends that the order is improper in view of Section 23A introduced by Amendment Act XV/2013, effective 25.11.2013, and notes that custody could be granted by bond alone according to other decisions. The State/Public Prosecutor opposes any illegality, arguing the court had discretion to impose any condition and that Section 23A had not been considered by the trial court. The High Court cites Shan v. State of Kerala (2010) and Sujith v. State of Kerala (2012) and, relying on Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (2014), clarifies that security under Section 23A should be liberally construed and a portion of the amount may be deposited with the balance secured by bonds. Consequently, the court modifies the conditions, directing deposit of 10% of the vehicle’s value (₹40,000) and bond for the balance (₹3,60,000) with two sureties, retaining other conditions, and holds that release will be kept pending confiscation proceedings. The petition is disposed of with these directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482, Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 23A, Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001Section 451, Code of Criminal ProcedureAmendment Act XV/2013 (insofar as it inserts Section 23A)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Liberally construed security under Section 23A
  • Ends of justice (principle guiding financial security adjustments)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that post-amendment Section 23A requires liberal construction of security and that interim custody could be granted by bond alone; the lower court failed to apply Section 23A and relied on stricter security deposits that do not reflect the amended framework.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/Prosecutor submits that there is no illegality in the order; the court has discretion to impose conditions and 23A has not been misapplied; the law allows the court to impose security as deemed fit to meet ends of justice.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Shan V. State of Kerala2010 (3) KLT 413PositiveCited as authority for the approach to interim custody/conditions in line with earlier Kerala High Court decisions.
Sujith V. State of Kerala2012 (2) KLT 547PositiveCited alongside Shan to justify the management of conditions under the Act.
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala2014 (3) KLT 26PositiveCited for the proposition that security under Section 23A should be liberally construed, allowing deposit adjustment and balance by bond.

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 Aboobacker Sidhique K.H. 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** **THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2014/26TH ASHADHA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 4003 of 2014** **--------------------------CMP no. 6862/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, KASARAGOD DATED 05-02-2014** **........** **PETITIONER:** **--------------------** **ABOOBACKER SIDHIQUE K.H.,AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.HAMEED MUHAMMED, SAHAD MANZIL, KIDOOR PO, KORATHILA, ULLUWAR, KUMBLA, KASARAGOD.** **BY ADVS.SMT.HEMALATHA SRI.BINU GEORGE** **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **-----------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, 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 17-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4003 of 2014** **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE: -------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05/02/2014 PASSED BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, KASARAGOD IN CMP NO.6862/2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.4003 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of July, 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, Kasaragod in C.M.P.No.6862/2013 of Kumbala 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 the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-14-J/8813, which was seized by the respondent on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transporting river sand in violation of the provisions of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and a crime was registered under the Act. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.6862/2013 before the Judicial First Class CRMC.4003/ 2014 2 Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod, for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned magistrate by Annexure-I order granted interim custody on conditions inter-alia that: 1. The petitioner shall execute a bond for ₹ 4,00,000/- with two solvent sureties who each shall execute a bond for like sum. 2. Petitioner shall deposit 1,20,000/- before this₹ court in cash. 3. The petitioner shall produce the bank guarantee or property security for 2,80,000/- before₹ this court. 4. The petitioner shall not use or cause the said vehicle be used for unlawful activities. 5. The petitioner shall produce back the said vehicle as and when directed. 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 CRMC.4003/ 2014 3 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 25.11.2013. Further this court in another case granted custody by executing a bond alone. 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 the vehicle with No. KL-14-J/8813, which belongs to the petitioner was seized by the police, 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 filed an application for interim custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by Annexure- CRMC.4003/ 2014 4 I order with the above said conditions. 8. Condition Nos. 1 to 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 25.11.2013 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 CRMC.4003/ 2014 5 can be directed to be deposited and for the balance amount, the personal bond with sureties can be directed to be executed and that will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice”. 10. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision, the conditions imposed by the court below, directing the petitioner to deposit 30% value of the vehicle and furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount is set aside and the same is modified as follows: The petitioner shall deposit 10% 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. 1 to 3 imposed by the court below are set aside and the same is modified, retaining the other conditions and those conditions are modified as follows: The petitioner is directed to deposit 10% of the value assessed for the vehicle, namely ₹40,000/- and CRMC.4003/ 2014 6 execute a bond for the balance amount of 3,60,000/- with₹ two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod. 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. 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 and also hand over a copy of the order to the counsel for the petitioner to produce the same before the court below. Sd/- ## **K. Ramakrishnan, Judge** // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss