High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-07-17Petition disposed of; order of the JFMC modifie...

Hareesh v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 3988 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 modified the interim custody conditions: deposit 10% of the vehicle’s value (Rs 70,000) and execute a bond for the balance (Rs 6,30,000) with two solvent sureties for the like sums; retain other conditions and provide for release of the vehicle until the confiscation proceedings are completed.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed of; order of the JFMC modified to require 10% deposit and balance by bond with two sureties, with other conditions retained; release of vehicle allowed until completion of confiscation proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Hareesh

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT. Hemalatha
• Sri. Binu George

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Smt. S. Hyma

Case Synopsis & Summary

Hareesh, the petitioner, challenges an interim custody order issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod, under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, in relation to a vehicle seized for alleged sand transportation. The order granted interim custody under Section 457 CrPC subject to stringent conditions: deposit of Rs 7,00,000 as bond with two solvent sureties, a cash deposit of Rs 2,10,000, and a bank guarantee for Rs 4,90,000, with the vehicle not to be used for unlawful activities and to be produced back as directed. The petitioner contends that post-amendment Section 23A (Amendment Act XV/2013, effective 25.11.2013) modifies the procedure after confiscation and the court’s powers for interim custody, and that the conditions were not properly framed; he cites Shan v. State of Kerala and Sujith v. State of Kerala to support resorting to lighter conditions, noting that custody can be granted on bonds alone in some cases. The Public Prosecutor opposes any illegality, arguing the court has discretion to impose conditions. The High Court refers to Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (2014) to emphasize liberal construction of security and partial deposits with bonds. It then modifies the order: petitioner must deposit 10% of the vehicle’s value (Rs 70,000) and execute a bond for the balance (Rs 6,30,000) with two sureties, retaining other conditions, and keeping release until confiscation proceedings conclude. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001Section 23A (Amendment Act XV/2013)Section 457 of CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Security should be liberally construed (Aboobacker v. State of Kerala)
Ends of justice in determining security deposits

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the interim custody terms imposed under Section 457 CrPC, particularly the heavy deposit and bank guarantee, are not proper in light of the amended Act which introduces Section 23A. They urged liberal construction of security per the Supreme/High Court authorities and argued that custody could be granted by bond alone or with a reduced deposit, citing Shan v. State of Kerala, Sujith v. State of Kerala and, most importantly, Aboobacker v. State of Kerala to justify partial deposits plus bonds to meet ends of justice. The request was for modification to deposit 10% of vehicle value and bond for the balance, with the other conditions retained. respondents: The State’s counsel contended there is no illegality in the order, and the court has discretion to impose appropriate conditions. They argued that Section 23A is to be considered post-amendment, and that the existing conditions reflect a prudent approach to preserve ends of justice during confiscation proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent’s counsel argued the court’s discretion to impose conditions and that existing security measures were not illegal at the time of the order; they maintained the need to deter misuse and ensure safe custody pending confiscation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan V. State of Kerala	2010 (3) KLT 413	Mentioned Only	Cited by the magistrate as a decision considered in formulating conditions; not directly applied to the current ruling.
Sujith V. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Mentioned Only	Cited as having influenced the magistrate’s reasoning; not specifically adopted or overruled in this order.
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala	2014 (3) KLT 26	Positive	Court relied on this decision to endorse liberal construction of security deposits and allow partial deposits with bonds, guiding the modified order.

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 Hareesh 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. 3988 of 2014** **--------------------------CMP NO. 4555/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I,KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 592/2011 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD** **........** **PETITIONER:** **--------------------------** **HAREESH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. AITHAPPA SUVARNA, KUNDATHEMOOLA HOUSE, PERAL P.O., MOGRAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SMT.HEMALATHA SRI.BINU GEORGE** **RESPONDENT:** **------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED 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 17-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** **Crl.MC.No. 3988 of 2014 -----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE: ------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2013 PASSED BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, KASARAGOD IN C.M.P.NO.4555/2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE** **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> Kss<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.3988 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.4555/2013 in Crime No.592/2011 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-K/3104, 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 CRMC.3988/ 2014 2 C.M.P.No.4555/2013 before the Judicial First Class 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 ₹ 7,00,000/- with two solvent sureties who each shall execute a bond for like sum. 2. Petitioner shall deposit 2,10,000/- before this₹ court in cash. 3. The petitioner shall produce the bank guarantee or property security for 4,90,000/- 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. CRMC.3988/ 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-14-K/3104, 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 CRMC.3988/ 2014 4 Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by AnnexureI 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 CRMC.3988/ 2014 5 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 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 CRMC.3988/ 2014 6 value assessed for the vehicle, namely ₹70,000/- and execute a bond for the balance amount of 6,30,000/- 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 CRMC.3988/ 2014 7