Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with modification of interim custod...

Jemshid v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.4747 of 2014
Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Ramakrishnan, J.
Judgment Date
2014-08-21
Court Decision / Holding
With the above modification of the conditions imposed, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with modification of interim custody conditions; vehicle release kept pending confiscation proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jemshid

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. T. K. Ajith Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, Smt. Sareena P. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jemshid, the registered owner of a vehicle (KL-467689) seized by Kondotty police under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, seeks interim custody of the vehicle under CrPC Section 451 before a magistrate. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram, granted interim custody subject to conditions: bond for Rs. 1,90,000 with two solvent sureties; deposit Rs.70,000; bank guarantee for Rs.1,20,000; production of RC; panchanama; attested copies; and mandatory production of the vehicle. Jemshid challenged these conditions, arguing that the Act was amended (Amendment Act XV/2013) introducing Section 23A, effective 25.11.2012, which governs post-seizure procedures and interim custody, and that, following other rulings, custody could be granted on bond with minimal or no heavy deposits. The State’s counsel defended the order, asserting the magistrate’s discretion to impose conditions. The High Court noted that while Shan v. State of Kerala and Sujith v. State of Kerala influenced lower court conclusions, Section 23A had not been considered by them, and it relied on Aboobacker v. State of Kerala to endorse liberal construction of security. Consequently, it modified the conditions: Jemshid must deposit 15% of the vehicle’s value (Rs.28,500) and execute a bond for the balance Rs.1,61,500 with two solvent sureties, to the magistrate’s satisfaction; the vehicle may be released pending confiscation proceedings. Other conditions remain in force. The matter is disposed of with these modifications.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSection 451 of CrPCProtection 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)Amendment Act XV/2013

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Security deposits can be liberally construed (Aboobacker v. State of Kerala)
  • Ends of justice
  • Partial deposit with balance secured by bond/sureties

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the conditions imposed by the lower court (interim custody terms) are not proper in light of Section 23A (incorporated by Amendment Act XV/2013, effective 25-11-2012). They argue that custody could be granted on bond alone and that the court should liberally construe security once post-seizure procedures are considered, citing Shan v. State of Kerala and Sujith v. State of Kerala. The court should apply Aboobacker v. State of Kerala to permit a reduced deposit and greater reliance on bond/sureties, ensuring ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, opposes any illegality in the order, asserting the magistrate’s discretion to impose conditions and that post-seizure procedures under the amended Act justify the existing or adjusted safeguards to secure the vehicle pending confiscation. No illegality is seen in the order; relief should be determined by the court within the framework of existing criminal procedure and post-seizure rules.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Shan V. State of Kerala2010 (3) KLT 413Mentioned OnlyCited as background authority; the present order notes the case but does not follow or distinguish it explicitly in deciding Section 23A issues.
Sujith V. State of Kerala2012 (2) KLT 547Mentioned OnlyCited for context; the judgment uses later amendments and Aboobacker rather than this decision to shape the outcome.
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala2014 (3) KLT 26PositiveExplicitly cited as controlling authority for liberal construction of security deposits and for justifying partial deposit with bond to balance ends of justice.

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 Jemshid 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 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014/30TH SRAVANA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4747 of 2014** **----------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 5507/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM, DATED 06-08-2014 CRIME NO. 550/2014 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM** **-------------** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER:** **--------------------------------------** **JEMSHID, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. MARIYAM, MADATHIL HOUSE, VELLERI, CHEMRAKKATTOOR, MALAPPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR** **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY THE PUBLIC PROECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA P.GEORGE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4747 of 2014** **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES** **----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/8/14 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM IN CMP.NO.5507 OF 2014.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE** **----------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ............................................. Crl.M.C.No.4747 of 2014 .............................................. Dated this the 21[st] day of August, 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.5507/2014 in Crime No.550/2014 of Kondotty 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-467689, which was seized by the respondent on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transportation 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') and a crime has been registered as Crime No.550/2014 of Kondotty police station. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.5507/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned magistrate by Annexure-A order granted interim custody of the vehicle on conditions inter -alia that: 2 Crl.M.C.No.4747 of 2014 - i. Petitioner shall execute a bond for ` 1,90,000/- - with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. ii. Petitioner shall deposit ` 70,000/- in the court. iii. Petitioner shall produce bank guarantee for ` 1,20,000/-. iv. Petitioner shall produce photograph and CD of the vehicle. v. SHO is directed to prepare a panchanama of the vehicle. vi. petitioner shall produce attested true copy of the RC. vii. Petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the court as and when directed. The above conditions were 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 learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Heard the learned 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 25.11.2012. Further Crl.M.C.No.4747 of 2014 3 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, Kondotty police had seized the vehicle with No. KL-46-7689, 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 filed an application for interim custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by Annexure-A order with the above 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 25.11.2012 has not been taken note of by the court below. 4 Crl.M.C.No.4747 of 2014 9. After the above decisions, the Act has been amended by incorporating Section 23A, which deals with the procedure to be followed after seizure, 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”. So the condition imposed by the court below to deposit Rs.70,000/- and furnish bank guarantee or property security for the balance amount are set aside and the conditions are modified as follows: The petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of the value assessed for the vehicle, namely ` 28500/- and execute a bond for the balance amount of ` 1,61,500/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. Crl.M.C.No.4747 of 2014 5 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 immediately. Sd/- ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4747 of 2014 6