Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of

Mohammed Sakkkeer K. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 3979 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Ramakrishnan, J.
Judgment Date
2014-07-17
Court Decision / Holding
The High Court modified the interim custody conditions: deposit 10% of the vehicle value and execute a bond for the balance with two solvent sureties, while retaining the other conditions and keeping the vehicle release until the confiscation proceedings are completed. The case is disposed of with communication to the lower court and furnish a copy to counsel.
Final Disposition
Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Mohammed Sakkkeer K.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Smt. Hemalatha
  • • Sri. Binu George

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. P. Maya

Case Synopsis & Summary

Mohammed Sakkkeer K. filed Crl.MC No. 3979 of 2014 challenging the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, in CMP No. 379/2013 in Crime No. 17/2013 under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, which granted interim custody of his vehicle KL-14-K/7971. The Magistrate’s Annexure-I order imposed several conditions for release, including deposit of ₹6,35,000 as a bond, 30% of the vehicle’s value (₹1,90,500) as cash, and a bank guarantee for the balance ₹4,44,500, along with production of the original RC, insurance, Panjanama, and the vehicle when required for confiscation proceedings. The petitioner challenged these conditions, arguing that post-amendment Act XV/2013 (Section 23A) alters the procedure following confiscation and that the lower court did not properly apply the liberal construction of security suggested by recent case law. The advocate for the petitioner also pointed to Shan v. State of Kerala (2010) and Sujith v. State of Kerala (2012) as precedents relied on by the magistrate, while noting that those authorities were not properly considered in light of the amended Act. The High Court, invoking Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (2014) and the liberal interpretation of security, modified the conditions to require deposit of 10% of the value and a bond for the balance with two solvent sureties, retaining other terms and keeping the vehicle release pending confiscation. The matter is disposed of with directions to communicate the order to the concerned court and to furnish a copy to counsel.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, Section 23ACode of Criminal Procedure, Section 457

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Liberally construed security
  • Ends of justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the interim custody conditions imposed by the Magistrate are not proper after the 2013 Amendment Act XV/2013 introducing Section 23A, which governs post-confiscation procedures. The petitioner contends that the lower court relied on pre-amendment standards and failed to heed liberal construction of security as advocated in Aboobacker v. State of Kerala, Shan v. State of Kerala, and Sujith v. State of Kerala. He argues that custody by bond alone should be permissible in some cases, and that security should not unduly burden the owner. The court should adopt a more liberal approach: deposit a smaller portion (10%) of the vehicle value and balance through a bond with two sureties, enabling release pending confiscation and ensuring ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents assert that the Magistrate’s discretion to impose conditions is valid and that there is no illegality in the order. They point to the Act’s framework and the necessity to secure ends of justice by ensuring compliance with confiscation procedures. They contend that Section 23A codifies post-confiscation procedure and that the petitioner's arguments rely on older precedents (Shan and Sujith) which were not applied; the present case should be resolved within the amended regime and the existing security measures, which the High Court rightly reviewed in light of Aboobacker, justify continuing reasonable conditions to preserve the state’s interest and ensure proper implementation of confiscation proceedings.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Shan v. State of Kerala2010 (3) KLT 413Mentioned OnlyCited by the lower court as a precedent but not adopted or explicitly applied by the High Court in its reasoning.
Sujith v. State of Kerala2012 (2) KLT 547Mentioned OnlyReferenced by the lower court; High Court notes the decision but does not rely on it for the present modification.
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala2014 (3) KLT 26PositiveCited with approval to justify liberal construction of security and meeting the ends of justice in post-Section 23A context.

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 Mohammed Sakkkeer K. 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. 3979 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CMP.NO. 379/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG CRIME NO. 17/2013 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD -----------------** **PETITIONER :** **---------------------** **MOHAMMED SAKKEER K., AGED 38 YEARS S/O. MAHIN K., SHAFEEK, BEVINJE THEKKIL FERRY P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SMT.HEMALATHA SRI.BINU GEORGE** **RESPONDENT/STATE : ----------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 3979 of 2014 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES : ----------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE I : CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.02.2013 PASSED BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG IN CMP NO.379/2013** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE Mn** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.3979 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, Hosdurg, in C.M.P.No.379/2013 in Crime No.17/2013 of Chandera 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/7971, 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'). The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.379/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, for interim custody of the CRMC.3979/ 2014 2 vehicle. The learned magistrate by Annexure-I order granted interim custody on conditions inter-alia that: 1. The petitioner shall execute a bond for ₹ 6,35,000/-. 2. Petitioner has to deposit 1,90,500/- 30% of₹ the total value of the vehicle. 3. The petitioner shall produce the bank guarantee or execute a bond for 4,44,500/- for the₹ balance amount with original title deed and valuation certificate showing value of the property issued by revenue authority. 4. The petitioner shall produce Panjanama 5. The petitioner shall produce original RC and insurance of the vehicle for verification. 6. The petitioner is directed to produce the vehicle as and when required for the confiscation proceedings. 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, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the CRMC.3979/ 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-14-K/7971, 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 the above said CRMC.3979/ 2014 4 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 liberally construed and a portion of the amount CRMC.3979/ 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 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 value assessed for the vehicle, namely ₹63,500/- and CRMC.3979/ 2014 6 execute a bond for the balance amount of 5,71,500/- 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