High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of

Jamseer v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRMC.3824/2014

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date
2014-07-10
Court Decision / Holding
The High Court disposes of the petition by modifying the interim-custody conditions: reduce deposit from 30% to 10% of vehicle value, require a bond for the balance Rs. 6,30,000 with two solvent sureties, retain other requirements, and allow release of the vehicle pending completion of confiscation proceedings under the Act.
Final Disposition
Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jamseer, aged 26, s/o Amoo Aboobacker, Elinjikka House, East Bevinje, Thekkil Ferry P.O., Chengala Village, Kasaragod

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by S.I. of Police, Bedakam, Kasaragod, by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Smt. Hemalatha
  • • Sri. Binu George

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. S. Hyma (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jamseer v. State of Kerala (Criminal Misc. Case No. 3824 of 2014) before the Kerala High Court challenges an interim-custody order issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg, under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, in CMP 4968/2013 (Crime No. 334/2013, Cheemeni Police Station). Jamseer, the registered owner of vehicle KL-14-K/969, had sought interim custody with bond, deposit and bank-guarantee conditions that accompanied the magistrate’s order dated 19-08-2013. The petitioner argued that amendments via Act XV/2013, including Section 23A, altered the post-confiscation framework and reduced the need for heavy security; counsel also cited that custody could be granted on bond alone in other cases. The State contended that the court possesses discretion to impose conditions and found no illegality in the order. The High Court, after hearing, referred to earlier Kerala decisions Shan v. State of Kerala and Sujith v. State of Kerala, and relied on the liberal construction doctrine laid down in Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KLT 26) to reframe the security. It held that the 30% deposit was excessive, and modified the conditions: deposit 10% of vehicle value and bond for the balance Rs. 6,30,000 with two solvent sureties, while keeping other provisions intact. The release of the vehicle was held to be pending the completion of confiscation proceedings, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • liberal construction of security deposits
  • ends of justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the condition imposed by the trial court on deposit and bank guarantee is not proper in view of the insertion of Section 23A by Amendment Act XV/2013; that custody by bond alone is permissible as per the amended provision and as held in other cases.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the trial court has discretion to impose appropriate conditions for interim custody and that there is no illegality in the order; the balance of justice requires maintaining safeguards.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala2014 (3) KLT 26PositiveThe court follows the liberal construction principle for security deposits as laid down in Aboobacker, allowing a partial deposit with a bond for the balance to meet ends of justice.
Shan v. State of Kerala2010 (3) KLT 413Mentioned OnlyCited as a context-building authority; not explicitly applied or distinguished in the decision.
Sujith v. State of Kerala2012 (2) KLT 547Mentioned OnlyCited for background relevance; not expressly treated as a ruling within the decision.

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 Jamseer 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 10TH DAY OF JULY 2014/19TH ASHADHA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 3824 of 2014** **----------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 4968/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDRUG DATED 19-08-2013 CRIME NO. 334/2013 OF CHEEMENI POLICE STATION , KASARGOD ---------------** **PETITIONER(S): ----------------------** **JAMSEER, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. AMOO ABOOBACKER, ELINJIKKA HOUSE, EAST BEVINJE, THEKKIL FERRY P.O., CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** **BY ADVS.SMT.HEMALATHA SRI.BINU GEORGE** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE : ------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, BEDAKAM, KASARAGOD, 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 10-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 3824 of 2014** **---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE I : COPY OF ORDER DTD.19.8.2013 PASSED BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG IN CMP NO.4968/2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES --------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.3824 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[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, Hosdurg, in C.M.P.No.4968/2013 in Crime No.334/2014 of Cheemeni 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/969, 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.4968/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, for interim custody of the CRMC.3824/ 2014 2 vehicle. The learned magistrate by Annexure-I order granted interim custody on conditions inter-alia that: 1. Petitioner shall execute bond for 7,00,000/- ₹ 2. Petitioner has to Deposit 2,10,000/- ₹ 30% of total value of vehicle. 3. Petitioner shall produce bank guarantee for ₹ 4,90,000/-, the balance amount. 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 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 CRMC.3824/ 2014 3 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 Cheemeni police had seized the vehicle with No. KL-14-K/969, which belongs to the petitioner, 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 Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by Annexure-I order with following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall execute bond for 7,00,000/- ₹ 2. Petitioner has to Deposit 2,10,000/- ₹ 30% of total value of vehicle. 3. Petitioner shall produce bank guarantee for ₹ 4,90,000/-, the balance amount. 4. Petitioner shall produce Panjanama. 5. Petitioner shall produce original RC and Insurance of the vehicle for verification. CRMC.3824/ 2014 4 6. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the District Collector in the proceedings. 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.3824/ 2014 5 liberally construed and a portion of the amount can be directed to be deposited and for the balance amount, the personal bond 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 condition imposed by the court below, directing the petitioner to deposit 30% value of the vehicle and furnish bank guaranty 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 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 ₹70,000/- and CRMC.3824/ 2014 6 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, 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