High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-07-17Petition disposed of with modified interim cust...

Beena M.M. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 3994 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2014-07-17
Court Decision / Holding: This Court disposes of the petition by modifying the interim custody conditions: deposit is reduced to 10% of the vehicle value (₹36,200) with a bond for the balance amount backed by two solvent sureties; the release of the vehicle is kept in abeyance until the confiscation proceedings under the Act are completed. Other conditions imposed by the lower court remain in force.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed of with modified interim custody conditions as stated above. The order below is altered to reflect 10% deposit and bond with two sureties; release remains subject to confiscation proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Beena M.M.

Respondents

The State of Kerala, through the Station House Officer, Nileshwar Police Station, Kasaragod District, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. Madhu
• Smt. C.R. Saradamani

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. S. Hyma

Case Synopsis & Summary

Beena M.M., the petitioner, challenges the order of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, granting interim custody of a seized vehicle KL-60-D/9975 under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (the Act). The Magistrate had directed the petitioner to deposit 30% of the vehicle’s value (₹3,62,000) and to furnish security for the balance, in addition to providing the vehicle for inspection and authenticated documents. The order was issued in CMP 3389/2014 in Crime 481/2013 of Nileshwar Police Station. Beena M.M. contends that, after the 2013 Amendment Act XV, introducing Section 23A, the old regime of mandatory deposits and securities is incompatible; she seeks relief on grounds that custody can be granted on bond alone. The State counters that the court retains discretion to impose conditions. The Kerala High Court, noting amendments to the Act and citing Shan v. State of Kerala and Sujith v. State of Kerala, but also relying on Aboobacker v. State of Kerala, holds that security can be liberally construed and that the balance between orderly confiscation and releasing the vehicle must meet justice. Accordingly, it modifies the conditions, replacing the 30% deposit with a 10% deposit, and requiring a bond for the balance with two solvent sureties, while keeping other conditions intact and keeping the vehicle release until confiscation proceedings are complete. The petition is disposed of on these terms by Justice K. Ramakrishnan.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSection 457 of CrPCSection 23A of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice (referenced concept)
Liberal construction of security for interim custody (Aboobacker v. State of Kerala)
Discretionary power to impose conditions on interim custody (policy preserved by amendment)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that the 30% deposit and the security requirements imposed by the Magistrate under the Act are not proper in view of the amended Section 23A (Amendment Act XV/2013) and the evolving framework governing interim custody. She contended custody could be safely granted on bond with appropriate sureties, citing the need to align orders with the amended regime and emphasizing that the previous decisions cited by the court below did not reflect the current law.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that the court has discretion to impose sensible conditions for interim custody and that the 30% deposit and security obligations were legally permissible. It argued that the amended Act provides a framework within which such conditions may be imposed to safeguard confiscation procedures and public interest.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan v. State of Kerala	2010 (3) KLT 413	Mentioned Only	Cited as a prior decision, not expressly followed or distinguished in the present order.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of background jurisprudence; not applied as authoritative binding doctrine in the current modification.
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala	2014 (3) KLT 26	Positive	Cited and applied to justify liberal construction of security and the permissible forms of securing amounts in interim custody, influencing the modified 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 Beena M.M. 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. 3994 of 2014** **--------------------------CMP NO. 3389/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, HOSDURG DATED 26-05-2014** **...... CRIME NO. 481/2013 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD** **.....** **PETITIONER:** **--------------------------** **BEENA M.M.,AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.KANNAN, RESIDING AT MADUPPIL HOUSE, ANANDAMPALLA, THAIKADAPPURAM P.O., NILESHWAR VIA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI** **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **--------------------------------** **THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NILESHWAR POLICESTATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THEPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **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. 3994 of 2014** **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE:** **-----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.5.2014 IN C.M.P NO.3389/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-II, HOSDURG.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.3994 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-II, Hosdurg, in C.M.P.No.3389/2014 in Crime No.481/2013 of Nileshwar 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-60-D/9975, 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 has been registered under this Act. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.3389/2014 before the Judicial First Class CRMC.3994/ 2014 2 Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned magistrate by Annexure-AI order granted interim custody on conditions inter-alia that: 1. Petitioner shall deposit 30% of the value of the vehicle assessed by Joint RTO as 3,62,000/-. ₹ 2. The petitioner is directed to furnish bank guarantee or immovable property as security for the balance amount of the vehicle. 3. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the court as and when required. 4. The amount deposited and security furnished will follow the final out come of the confiscation proceedings. 5. The petitioner shall produce authenticated photographs of the vehicle also original documents of the vehicle for verification. 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.3994/ 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-60-D/9975, 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 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by Annexure- CRMC.3994/ 2014 4 AI order with the above said conditions. 8. Condition No. 1 is 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.3994/ 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 No. 1 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 10% of the value assessed for the vehicle, namely ₹36,200/- and CRMC.3994/ 2014 6 execute a bond for the balance amount of 3,25,800/- with₹ two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, 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. 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