High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-12-13Disposed of

Ajeesh Kumar v. State of Kerala and Deputy Forest Range Officer, Nagarampara Forest Station, Idukki

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No.6632 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date: 2022-12-13
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. disposed of; the High Court directs the Authorised Officer to consider an application under Section 53 and pass orders thereon within 45 days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ajeesh Kumar

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
Deputy Forest Range Officer, Nagarampara Forest Station, Idukki Township, Cheruthoni P.O., IDUKKI District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Jiji
• M.M. Baby

Counsels for Respondents

• Renjit George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This criminal miscellaneous case is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the owner of a JCB challenging an order in CMP 3176/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adimaly, arising from O.R. No. 03/2020 of Nagarampara Forest Station, Idukki. The second accused, Ajeesh Kumar, is alleged to have used the vehicle to commit offences under the Kerala Forest Act (Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv)). The forest authorities have moved to confiscate the vehicle under Section 61A; a notice of confiscation was issued. The petitioner sought interim custody of the vehicle, claiming it was not involved in the crime and that it had been seized long after the alledged incident. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that under Section 61A the vehicle is in custody of the Authorised Officer for confiscation and that production before the court is not required; the release would, if ever possible, be subject to a bank guarantee per State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan. The Magistrate previously relied on a Kerala High Court decision which held that interim release requires production of the articles before the court; the High Court, however, considered the matter in light of the specific forest-law framework. In the result, the High Court disposes of the Crl.M.C. but directs the Authorised Officer to consider a Section 53 application and pass orders within 45 days, from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Thus the bench emphasizes adherence to the forest act scheme and the Cr.P.C. procedural remedies, while ensuring that the forest authorities' procedures are followed by the time-bound directive.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Forest Act, 1961 - Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv)Kerala Forest Act, 1961 - Section 61AKerala Forest Act, 1961 - Section 53Kerala Forest Act, 1961 - Sections 4 and 5Cr.P.C. - Sections 451 and 457Cr.P.C. - Section 52(2)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that the vehicle was not involved in the crime, was seized after a considerable delay, and sought interim custody under Cr.P.C. Sections 451/457 on the ground that production before the court is not feasible given the forest-offence context. He maintained that the vehicle should be released subject to cash/bank bank guarantee and that the Section 61A confiscation process is a quasi-administrative matter that requires due process rather than immediate forfeiture. The petitioner contended there is no direct nexus between the vehicle and the offence, and that releasing it would not impede investigation or enforcement; he urged reliance on the principle that interim custody can be granted when essential conditions are satisfied and that safeguards (like banking guarantees) can secure value. respondents

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor argued that under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act the vehicle is in the custody of the authorised officer for confiscation, and a notice of confiscation having been issued, interim custody should not be granted. It was contended that Section 53 allows release only after proper consideration by authorities with possible bank guarantees; production before the court for interim release is not mandated given the special legislation governing forest offences, and the law provides procedural avenues under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. The prosecution also cited Karnataka v. K. Krishnan to argue that release, if permissible, would be subject to bank guarantees and market-value security, and that the case should be decided within the forest-offence framework rather than through ordinary custody rules. It was urged that the court should defer indefinite release until confiscation proceedings are complete and that the seized asset remains in government custody pending the outcome of statutory proceedings.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan	(2000) 7 SCC 80	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate the potential requirement of a bank guarantee for release, but not adopted as controlling authority in the present case.
Shameer P.M. and Another v. State of Kerala	2011 KHC 509	Positive	Cited as authority supporting the view that the jurisdiction to release may, in appropriate circumstances, be exercised without requiring production of the seized articles before the court; the present judgment follows this line to some extent.

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 Ajeesh Kumar v. State of Kerala and Deputy Forest Range Officer, Nagarampara Forest Station, Idukki 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 A. BADHARUDEEN TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/22ND AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1944** ## **CRL.MC NO.6632 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 3176/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, IDUKKI IN O.R.NO.03/2020 OF NAGARAMPARA FOREST STATION, IDUKKI** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:** AJEESH KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SIVAN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, PAZHAYARIKANDAM P.O., KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685606. BY ADVS. S.JIJI M.M.BABY ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & FOREST OFFICER:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031. 2 DEPUTY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, NAGARAMPARA FOREST STATION, IDUKKI TOWNSHIP, CHERUTHONI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685602. BY ADV. SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ## **Crl.M.C. No.6632 of 2022** ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated, this the 13[th] December, 2022** The 2[nd] accused in O.R.No.03/2020 of Nagarampara Forest Station, Idukki has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.' for short) to set aside order in in C.M.P. No.3176/2022 dated 15.06.2022 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Idukki in a petition filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, who is the owner of a JCB bearing No.KL-06J-4797, which was taken into custody by the Forest Officer on the allegation that the vehicle was used to commit offences punishable under Section 27(1),(e), (iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. 2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length to upset the order impugned on the premise that the petitioner is **Crl.M.C. No.6632 of 2022** 3 entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle, on the submission that the vehicle was not involved in the crime in any manner and the vehicle was seized after one year from the date of occurrence, merely based on the statement given by one among the accused and for other reasons. 3. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in view of the mandate of Section 61A, now the vehicle is in custody of the Authorised Officer to proceed with confiscation and notice of confiscation also was issued against the petitioner. In this matter, as on 31.03.2022, notice of confiscation was issued and the same is an admitted fact. The learned Public Prosecutor also placed a decision reported in [(2000) 7 SCC 80] _**State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan,**_ to contend that if at all the vehicle will be released, the same shall be subject to **Crl.M.C. No.6632 of 2022** 4 production of bank guarantee towards its market value. 4. Coming to interim custody, in fact, interim custody can be considered under Section 451 or 457 of Cr.P.C., only when the vehicle has been produced before the court in a crime or when the seizure of the property is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, relying on a decision of this Court reported in [2011 KHC 509] _**Shameer P.M. and Another v. State of**_ _**Kerala,**_ holding the said view. In the said decision, it was held as under: _In the light of the foregoing discussion particularly based upon the various provisions of the Act and Sections 4,5,451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., I have already found that the jurisdiction of the court to release the articles either by way of interim measure or final disposal can be done only if the same are produced before the court below and in lieu of producing the_ **Crl.M.C. No.6632 of 2022** 5 _articles before the court, the officers concerned can file a report as to why the articles are not produced and if so, the same can be treated as production of the articles or documents as contemplated under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. But, the mere report regarding the seizure to the court under Section 52(2) cannot be treated as report in lieu of production of articles as contemplated under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., especially the special and local law prescribes the procedure to be followed by the seizing officer with respect to the property seized. Thus, according to me, in the present case, there is no illegality from the part of the Forest Officials in not producing the articles before the court of law and producing the same before the officer who is authorised for confiscation under Section 61A of the Act. In the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed either under Section 451 or 457 of the Cr.P.C._ 5. While pressing for interim custody, it is pointed out by the learned counsel that Section 53 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 authorises _any Forest Officer of a rank not_ **Crl.M.C. No.6632 of 2022** 6 _inferior to that of a Ranger, who or whose subordinate has seized any tools, boats, vehicles or cattle, under the provisions of section 52, may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made._ 6. However, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that while invoking Section 53 of the Kerala Forest Act, then also vehicle can be released only on furnishing bank guarantee to the value of the vehicle. These are all matters to be considered by the Authorised Officer/s. Having considered the grievance of the petitioner in the matter of reduction of the value of the vehicle, since the same has been kept in an open space with possibility of ## **Crl.M.C. No.6632 of 2022** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** destruction, I direct the Authorised Officer to consider application, if any, filed by the petitioner under Section 53 and pass orders, there on, within a period of 45 days, from the date of production of copy of this judgment. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of. Sd/- ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.** ww **Crl.M.C. No.6632 of 2022** 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6632/2022** ## PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: |ANNEXURE A-1|TRUE COPY OF THE O.R. NO.3/2020 DATED| |---|---| ||15-07-2020 REGISTERED BY THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT.| |ANNEXURE A-2|TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED IN| ||O.R. NO.03/202 OF NAGARAMPARA FOREST| ||STATION.| |ANNEXURE A-3|TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 1ST| ||ACCUSED SALMON DATED 15-07-2020 IN CRIME| ||NO.03/2020<br>OF<br>NAGARAMPARA<br>FOREST| ||STATION.| |ANNEXURE A-4|TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED| ||29-12-2021 IN O.R. NO.03/2020 OF| ||NAGARAMPARA FOREST STATION.| |ANNEXURE A-5|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31-03-2022| ||ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE D.F.O.| ||MUNNAR.| |ANNEXURE A-6|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23-05-2022| ||FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE| ||JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT| ||ADIMALY.| |ANNEXURE A-7|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P.| ||NO.3176/2022 DATED 15-06-2022 OF THE| ||LEARNED JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE| ||COURT, ADIMALY.| |ANNEXURE A-8|TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT| ||DATED 11-07-2022 ISSUED BY THE| ||KANJIKKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH.|