High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with modifications to interim custo...

Noushadali K. v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kondotty, Malappuram District

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC.No.3855 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date
2014-07-11
Court Decision / Holding
The court disposes of CRL.MC No. 3855 of 2014 by modifying the conditions of interim custody: the petitioner shall deposit 15% of the vehicle value (₹19,500) and execute a bond for the balance (₹1,10,500) with two solvent sureties; the vehicle will be released till the completion of confiscation proceedings under the Act; other conditions imposed by the Magistrate remain in force. The order is communicated to the concerned court and to counsel.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with modifications to interim custody terms.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Noushadali K.

Respondents

  • The Sub Inspector of Police, Kondotty, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. T. K. Ajith Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor SMT. P. Maya

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC No.3855 of 2014) decided on 11 July 2014 by Justice K. Ramakrishnan. The petitioner Noushadali K. challenged a Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram, order in CMP No.3529/2014 that granted interim custody of a seized vehicle KL-17-C/7590 under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, and attached conditions including bond for 1,30,000, deposit of 45,000, and bank guarantee of 85,000, along with production of RC, photograph, CD, and panchanama. The petitioner argued that post-amendment Section 23A (Amendment Act XV/2013, effective 25-11-2013) and related caselaw require different treatment than the magistrate’s conditions, noting decisions Shan V. State of Kerala (2010) and Sujith V. State of Kerala (2012) as guiding background. The Public Prosecutor opposed any illegality, emphasizing the court’s discretion to impose conditions. The court acknowledged the amendments and cited Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (2014) (3 KLT 26), which endorsed liberal construction of security deposits to meet ends of justice. Accordingly, it set aside conditions 1–3 (bond and deposits) and modified them: the petitioner shall deposit 15% of the vehicle’s value and execute a bond for the balance with two sureties, with release continuing until confiscation proceedings under the Act are completed; other conditions remain. The petition is disposed of with these modifications, reflecting a balanced approach between procedural safeguards and individual liberty.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureProtection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001Section 23AAmendment Act XV/2013Section 457 of CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Liberal construction of security deposits (as endorsed in Aboobacker v. State of Kerala)
  • Ends of justice as guiding principle for securing release vs. confiscation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the conditions imposed by the Magistrate—bond for ₹1,30,000 with two sureties, deposit of ₹45,000, and bank guarantee of ₹85,000—are not proper in light of Section 23A added via Amendment XV/2013 (effective 25.11.2013). Citing Shan V. State of Kerala and Sujith V. State of Kerala, they submit that the post-confiscation framework requires different custody provisions. The court should liberalize the security mechanism and adopt a deposit of 15% of the vehicle value with a bond for the balance, guided by Aboobacker’s doctrine that security can be liberally construed to meet ends of justice. The petitioner had earlier obtained interim custody under Section 457 CrPC, and the relief sought would align with the amended statutory scheme.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor argues there is no illegality; the magistrate has discretion to impose appropriate conditions to safeguard the state’s interests and the confiscation objectives under the Act. The 23A amendment and post-confiscation procedure empower the court to regulate interim custody, and the existing order should stand as a valid exercise of discretion.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Shan V. State of Kerala(2010) 3 KLT 413Mentioned OnlyCited by the Magistrate as guiding authority; the present judgment notes the reference but does not adopt its holdings.
Sujith v. State of Kerala(2012) 2 KLT 547Mentioned OnlySimilarly cited in the context of the magistrate’s approach; not adopted by the present decision.
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala(2014) 3 KLT 26PositivePrecedent cited to justify liberal construction of security and adjusting deposit/bonds to meet 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 Noushadali K. v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kondotty, Malappuram District 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** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2014/20TH ASHADHA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3855 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CMP.NO. 3529/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, MALAPPURAM** **------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER:** **-----------------------------------------** **NOUSHADALI K., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.KOYAMU, AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE, CHEEKODE POST, MALAPPURAM DT.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **----------------------------------------------** **THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DT, 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 11-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 3855 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ---------------------------------------------** **ANNEX A - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 14.5.14 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM IN CMP NO. 3529/14** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.3855 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[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, Malappuram, in C.M.P.No.3529/2014 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-17-C/7590, 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.3529/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Malappuram, for interim custody of the CRMC.3855/ 2014 2 vehicle. The learned magistrate by Annexure-A order granted interim custody on conditions inter-alia that: 1. Petitioner shall execute bond for 1,30,000/- ₹ with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. 2. Petitioner shall Deposit 45,000/- ₹ in the court. 3. Petitioner shall produce security of bank guarantee for 85,000/-.₹ 4. Petitioner shall produce photograph and CD of the vehicle. 5. Station house officer is directed to prepare a panchanama of the vehicle. 6. Petitioner shall produce attested true copy of RC. 7. Petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the court 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.3855/ 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-17-C/7590, 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 CRMC.3855/ 2014 4 ## same was allowed by Annexure-A order with following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall execute bond for 1,30,000/- ₹ with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. 2. Petitioner shall Deposit 45,000/- ₹ in the court. 3. Petitioner shall produce security of bank guarantee for 85,000/-.₹ 4. Petitioner shall produce photograph and CD of the vehicle. 5. Station house officer is directed to prepare a panchanama of the vehicle. 6. Petitioner shall produce attested true copy of RC. 7. Petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the court as and when directed. 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 CRMC.3855/ 2014 5 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 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 bond for 1,30,000/- and₹ ₹ 45,000/- and bank guarantee of 85,000/- are set aside₹ CRMC.3855/ 2014 6 ## and the same is modified as follows: The petitioner shall deposit 15% 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 15% of the value assessed for the vehicle, namely ₹19,500/- and execute a bond for the balance amount of 1,10,500/- with₹ two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Malappuram. 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 CRMC.3855/ 2014 7 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