High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-07-11Disposed of

Ali v. Sub Inspector of Police, VazhakKAD, Malappuram District

Case / Petition Number:CRMC.3858/2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan, J.
Judgment Date: 2014-07-11
Court Decision / Holding: The court modified the lower court’s order, holding that the security deposit should be liberalized under the amended Act. It held that 15% of the vehicle’s value should be deposited (₹24,000) and the balance of ₹1,36,000 secured by a bond with two solvent sureties. The release of the vehicle is to continue pending confiscation proceedings, while other existing conditions remain in force. The matter is disposed of with these modifications.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Respondents

The Sub Inspector of Police, VazhaKKad, Malappuram District
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam (for the respondent)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.T.K.Ajith Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. S. Hyma

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRMC No.3858 of 2014) challenges an interim custody order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram, under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, as amended by Act XV of 2013 (Section 23A). The petitioner Ali, owner of vehicle KL-13P/9735, had sought interim custody under Section 457 CrPC; the magistrate granted custody on conditions including: a bond of ₹1,60,000 with two solvent sureties, deposit of ₹50,000 in court, bank guarantee for ₹1,10,000, production of photographs and RC copies, and a panchanama. Ali contends these conditions were improper in view of the Act’s amendment introducing Section 23A, arguing that the court below did not consider the amended framework. The Public Prosecutor defends the order, asserting that the court has discretion to impose appropriate conditions. The court notes that the petitioner relies on Shan v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 413) and Sujith v. State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLT 547), but acknowledges the amendment and the need to follow its principles. Citing Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KLT 26), it holds that security can be liberally construed and the amount deposited can be partial, supplemented by bonds to meet ends of justice. The court accordingly modifies the conditions: deposit 15% of the vehicle’s value (₹24,000) and bond for the balance (₹1,36,000) with two sureties, retaining other conditions, and directs vehicle release pending confiscation proceedings. The petition is disposed of on these terms.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCProtection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 – Section 23ASection 457 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Liberal construction of security deposits to meet ends of justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the interim custody conditions imposed by the JFCM were not proper in light of Amendment Act XV/2013 introducing Section 23A. He contends that the court below failed to consider the revised framework and that, in similar situations, custody can be granted by bond alone without stringent deposits or bank guarantees, as reflected in other cases. The petitioner relies on prior Kerala cases to urge a more liberal approach to interim custody.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends there is no illegality in the order; the court has discretion to impose conditions for interim custody, especially where seizure under the Act is involved. The respondents emphasize that the amended provisions and the court’s earlier decisions justify the imposition of deposit and security requirements to safeguard ends of justice.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan v. State of Kerala	2010 (3) KLT 413	Mentioned Only	Cited as a controlling instance referenced by the lower court; the present judgment notes the decision but does not rely on it due to the amended statutory framework.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Mentioned Only	Same as Shan, cited in the context of prior approach to interim custody but not adopted here under Section 23A.
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala	2014 (3) KLT 26	Positive	Cited with approval to justify liberal construction of security deposits and to meet ends of justice in light of the amended Act.

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 Ali v. Sub Inspector of Police, VazhakKAD, Malappuram District 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 11TH DAY OF JULY 2014/20TH ASHADHA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3858 of 2014** **----------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 5475/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ,MALAPPURAM, DATED 25-06-2014 CRIME NO. 255/2014 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM** **-------------** **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------** **ALI, AGED 51 YEARS, CHERAKUNDIL MADASSERY HOUSE, CHEEKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR** **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------** **THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 3858 of 2014** **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE** **----------------------------------------** **A1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 25.6.14 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM IN CMP NO. 5475/2014 WITH READABLE COPY OF ANNEXURE 'A' ORDER.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE** **------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.3858 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[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, Malappuram, in C.M.P.No.5475/2014 in Crime No.255/2014 of Vazhakkad 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-13-P/9735, which was seized by the respondent on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transporting of 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'). The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.5475/2014 before the Judicial First Class CRMC.3858/ 2014 2 Magistrate Court, Malappuram, for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned magistrate by Annexure-A order granted interim custody on conditions inter-alia that: 1. Petitioner shall execute bond for 1,60,000/-₹ with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. 2. Petitioner shall Deposit 50,000/- ₹ in the court. 3. Petitioner shall produce security of bank guarantee for 1,10,000/-.₹ 4. Petitioner shall produce photograph and CD of the vehicle. 5. Station house officer is directed to prepare a panchanama of the vehicle. 6. Petitioner shall produce attested true copy of RC. 7. Petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the court 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. CRMC.3858/ 2014 3 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 25.11.2013. 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-13P/9735, 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 had filed an application for interim custody under Section 457 of the CRMC.3858/ 2014 4 ## Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by ## Annexure-A order with following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall execute bond for 1,60,000/-₹ with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. 2. Petitioner shall Deposit 50,000/- ₹ in the court. 3. Petitioner shall produce security of bank guarantee for 1,10,000/-.₹ 4. Petitioner shall produce photograph and CD of the vehicle. 5. Station house officer is directed to prepare a panchanama of the vehicle. 6. Petitioner shall produce attested true copy of RC. 7. Petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the court as and when directed. 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 CRMC.3858/ 2014 5 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 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 CRMC.3858/ 2014 6 and furnish bank guaranty for the balance amount is set aside and the same is modified as follows: The petitioner shall deposit 15% 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 is set aside and the same is modified, retaining the other conditions and those conditions are modified as follows: The petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of the value assessed for the vehicle, namely ₹24,000/- and execute a bond for the balance amount of 1,36,000/- with₹ two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. 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. CRMC.3858/ 2014 7 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