Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of

Muneer K. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 3989 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. RAMAKRISHNAN
Judgment Date
2014-07-17
Court Decision / Holding
Modifies the interim custody conditions: deposits 10% of vehicle value (₹35,000) with bond for balance ₹3,15,000 secured by two sureties; other conditions retained; release of vehicle continues pending confiscation proceedings; case disposed of.
Final Disposition
Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Muneer K.

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SMT. Hemalatha
  • • Sri. Binu George

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, SMT. P. Maya

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case challenges an order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod, that granted interim custody of a vehicle seized under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The petitioner, Muneer K., owner of vehicle KL-13-C/5769, contends that the conditions attached to interim custody (deposit, bank guarantee, and personal bond) are improper in light of Amendment XV/2013 introducing Section 23A, which came into force on 25 November 2013. The Magistrate had imposed four conditions: deposit of 1,05,000 cash; a bank guarantee for 2,45,000; a bond with two solvent sureties for a corresponding amount; plus a condition not to use the vehicle for unlawful activities and to produce the vehicle when directed. The petitioner seeks modification, arguing custody by bond alone is permissible, as suggested by other decisions, and that the court below failed to consider Section 23A. The Public Prosecutor opposed any illegality. The High Court notes that post-seizure procedures under the Act, especially after amendment, must be liberally construed in alignment with recent rulings. Relying on Aboobacker v. State of Kerala, the court modifies the conditions: deposit reduced to 10% of the vehicle value (₹35,000) and balance secured by a bond for ₹3,15,000 with two sureties, retaining other conditions. The vehicle remains released until confiscation proceedings conclude. The matter is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482, Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 451, Code of Criminal ProcedureProtection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001Amendment XV/2013 Section 23A

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Liberally construed (as applied to security under Section 23A)
  • Ends of justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the conditions imposed by the Magistrate for interim custody under the amended River Banks Act (Section 23A) are not proper and should be read in light of the liberal approach to security enunciated in related decisions. They urge that custody could be granted by bond alone, as seen in other cases, and that the lower court did not duly consider the post-amendment regime which came into force on 25.11.2013. The financial burden of deposits and bank guarantees should be reduced consistent with ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/P.P. argues that there is no illegality in the order below and that the court has wide discretion to impose conditions for interim custody. It contends Section 23A has been inserted by the Amendment Act XV/2013 and should be supported by the prescribed security, and that the magistrate’s order fell within the permissible range to ensure preservation of property and compliance with the confiscation process.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Shan V. State of Kerala2010 (3) KLT 413Mentioned OnlyCited as a decision considered by the lower court but not adopted in the present ruling; the court notes it in referencing the post-amendment framework.
Sujith v. State of Kerala2012 (2) KLT 547Mentioned OnlyMentioned in the context of prior decisions relied upon by the lower court; not the basis for the current modification.
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala2014 (3) KLT 26PositiveCited and applied for liberal construction of security required under Section 23A, forming the basis for 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 Muneer 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. 3989 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CMP. NO.5181/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KASARAGOD.** **...........** **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **MUNEER. K., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.YOUSEF, KUNNOOL HOUSE, ETTIKULAM P.O., RAMANTHALI, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SMT.HEMALATHA, SRI.BINU GEORGE.** **RESPONDENTS/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:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3989 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** ## **ANNEXURE 1** **CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 07/01/2014 PASSED BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, KASARAGOD IN CMP NO. 5181/2013.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.3989 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.5181/2013 in Crime No.120/2013 of Manjeshwar 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-13-C/5769, 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.5181/2013 before the Judicial First Class CRMC.3989/ 2014 2 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 ₹ 3,50,000/- with two solvent sureties who each shall execute a bond for like sum. 2. Petitioner shall deposit 1,05,000/- before this₹ court in cash. 3. The petitioner shall produce the bank guarantee or property security for 2,45,000/- 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. 4. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the CRMC.3989/ 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-13-C/5769, 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 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by Annexure- CRMC.3989/ 2014 4 I 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 liberally construed and a portion of the amount CRMC.3989/ 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 ₹35,000/- and CRMC.3989/ 2014 6 execute a bond for the balance amount of 3,15,000/- 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