Salwa T.A. v. State of Kerala

## **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. 3999 of 2014** **--------------------------CMP NO.2649/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 26-04-2014** **....** **CRIME NO. 791/2013 OF PARIYARAM POLICE STATION , KANNUR** **....** ## **PETITIONER:** **--------------------------** **SALWA T.A., AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, H.NO.354(7/338) AYSHA MANZIL, THEKKIL FERRY, CHEMNAD, 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:** **Kss** **Crl.MC.No. 3999 of 2014 -----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:** **ANNEXURE-A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 26/04/2014 PASSED BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR IN CMP NO.2649/2014.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.3999 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, Payyannur, in C.M.P.No.2649/2014 in Crime No.791/2013 of Pariyaram 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/133, which was seized by the respondent on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transporting 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 was registered under the Act. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.2649/2014 before the Judicial First Class CRMC.3999/ 2014 2 Magistrate Court, Payyannur, for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned magistrate by Annexure-I order granted interim custody on conditions inter-alia that: 1. Petitioner shall deposit 2,10,000/- being the₹ 30% of the value of the vehicle in cash and for the balance amount of 4,90,000/-, he has to furnish a bank₹ guarantee or property as security. The original title deed shall be produced. 2. The petitioner shall produce the copies of vehicle documents attested by Gazetted officer. 3. The petitioner shall produce self attested photographs of the vehicle. 4. The petitioner shall not transfer possession or ownership of the vehicle without permission from the court and the authority by which confiscation proceedings will be initiated. 5. The interim custody is given subject to the confiscation proceedings, if any, initiated by the authorities, under the statute. 6. Petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by this court or as directed by the confiscating authority under the statute. 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 CRMC.3999/ 2014 3 of, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 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-14-K/133, 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 CRMC.3999/ 2014 4 admitted fact that the petitioner 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 conditions. 8. Condition Nos. 1 is 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)** CRMC.3999/ 2014 5 **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 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 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 imposed by the court below is set aside and the same is modified, retaining the other conditions and CRMC.3999/ 2014 6 ## those conditions are modified as follows: The petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of the value assessed for the vehicle, namely ₹31,500/- and execute a bond for the balance amount of 1,78,500/- with₹ two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur. 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