Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of the Crl.M.C. in part with modified ...

Saleem v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.4764 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Ramakrishnan, J.
Judgment Date
2014-08-21
Court Decision / Holding
The court modified the interim custody conditions: deposit 28,000 (20% of the vehicle value) and bond for 1,12,000 with two solvent sureties, to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. The release of the vehicle remains until the completion of confiscation proceedings under the Act; other conditions imposed by the Magistrate are retained. The petition is disposed of with these modifications and the order communicated to the concerned court.
Final Disposition
Disposed of the Crl.M.C. in part with modified interim custody terms; vehicle to be released subject to confiscation proceedings; communication of order to relevant court.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Saleem, s/o Abubacker Haji, Pulakuth House, Pazhoor P.O., Mavoor, Kozhikode Dt.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by S.I. of Police, Vazhakad, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. T.K. Ajith Kumar (Adv.)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor SMT. Sareena P. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala criminal miscellaneous petition challenges an interim custody order issued by a Judicial First Class Magistrate at Malappuram under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The vehicle KL-10V/7822, owned by Saleem, was seized for alleged sand transport under the Act. The Magistrate granted interim custody subject to conditions: deposits of 60,000, a bank guarantee of 80,000, a bond for 1,40,000 with two sureties, production of RC, photography/CD of the vehicle, panchanama, and appearance of the SHO for custody. Saleem argues these conditions are impermissible in light of amendments brought by Act XV of 2013 introducing Section 23A, effective 25.11.2012, and argues for custody to be secured by bond alone or with liberal security, as per Aboobacker v. State of Kerala. The Kerala High Court notes Shan V. State of Kerala and Sujith V. State of Kerala as authorities cited by the Magistrate but relies on post-seizure procedural constructs and liberal security concepts from Aboobacker to modify the conditions. The Court ultimately relaxes the financial conditions: deposit 28,000 (20% of value) and bond for 1,12,000 with two sureties, retaining other terms. The vehicle’s release remains subject to ongoing confiscation proceedings, and the petition is disposed of with these modifications, reflecting a balanced approach to interim custody under the amended statutory framework.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.Section 451 Cr.P.C.Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (as amended by Act XV/2013) - Section 23A

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice (doctrine)
  • Liberal construction of security deposits (as applied in Aboobacker v. State of Kerala)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the interim custody conditions under the 2001 Act, as amended by Act XV/2013, are not proper. He submits that Section 23A decorates post-seizure procedure but should not entail heavy financial restrictions; following Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KLT 26), security can be liberally construed and partly deposited with a bond for the remainder. He requests the Court to reduce the deposit to 28,000 (20% of vehicle value) and to secure the balance by bond for 1,12,000 with two sureties, releasing the vehicle pending confiscation proceedings and maintaining due process.

Contentions of Respondents

The Respondents argue there is no illegality in the magistrate’s order; Section 23A grants discretionary power to impose conditions to safeguard proceedings and ensure compliance with the Act. The petitioner’s challenge cannot undermine the state’s regulatory aims in river sand control. The Magistrate’s order is within judicial discretion and must be upheld or modified only mildly if necessary, preserving the statutory framework and the ends of justice.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Shan V. State of Kerala2010 (3) KLT 413Mentioned OnlyCited as a precedent considered by the Magistrate, but the current decision relies more on post-amendment provisions (Section 23A) and Aboobacker for liberal security rather than applying Shan's holding directly.
Sujith V. State of Kerala2012 (2) KLT 547Mentioned OnlyMentioned by the court as a decision considered by the lower court; the present order uses 23A and Aboobacker to modify terms rather than adopting Sujith’s specific ruling.
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala2014 (3) KLT 26PositiveThe court explicitly relies on Aboobacker to interpret security liberally and to justify reducing deposit amounts and permitting bond-based security.

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 Saleem 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. 4764 of 2014** **-----------------------------------** ## **CMP NO. 7248/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM** **------------** **PETITIONER / PETITIONER :** **----------------------------------------** **SALEEM, S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI, PULAKUTH HOUSE, PAZHOOR P.O., MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DT.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR** **RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT :** **----------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I OF POLICE, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DT., BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 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:** Msd. **Crl.MC.No. 4764 of 2014** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/04/2014 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM IN CMP NO.7248/2014.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ............................................. Crl.M.C.No.4764 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.7248/2014 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-10V/7822, 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'). The petitioner filed C.M.P.No7248/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malapppuram for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned magistrate by Annexure-A order granted interim custody of the vehicle on conditions inter-alia that: i. Petitioner shall execute a bond for `1,40,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. ii. Petitioner shall deposit `60,000/- in the court. 2 Crl.M.C.No.4764 of 2014 iii. Petitioner shall produce security of bank guarantee for `80,000/- 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 this court in another case granted custody by executing a bond alone. 6. The application was opposed by the learned Public Crl.M.C.No.4764 of 2014 3 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, Vazhakkad police had seized the vehicle with No.KL-10-V-7822, 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. 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 4 Crl.M.C.No.4764 of 2014 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. So the condition imposed by the court below to deposit `60,000/- in court 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 20% of the value assessed for the vehicle, namely `28,000/- and execute a bond for the balance amount of `1,12,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, 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 imposed, this Crl.M.C.No.4764 of 2014 5 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.4764 of 2014 6