Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of

Sharafuddin M.A. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRMC.4004/2014

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date
2014-07-17
Court Decision / Holding
The court set aside Conditions 1 and 2 (30% deposit and bank guarantee) and modified them: the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the vehicle’s value (₹72,500) and execute a bond for the balance amount with two solvent sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. Other conditions are retained. The release of the vehicle is contingent on the completion of confiscation proceedings under the Act. The matter is disposed of.
Final Disposition
Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sharafuddin M.A.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Smt. Hemalatha
  • • Sri. Binu George

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. S. Hyma

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Sharafuddin M.A., owner of motor vehicle KL-14-K/3260, challenged an order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, granting interim custody of the vehicle under Section 482 CrPC in CMP No. 1875/2014 in Crime 53/2014 of Nileshwar Police Station, under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The magistrate had ordered custody subject to conditions: deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value (₹7,25,000) and furnishing security for the balance, production of the vehicle, and authenticated documents. The petitioner contended these conditions were improper post-amendment, since Section 23A was inserted by Amendment XV/2013 (effective 25.11.2013), and custody could be granted on bond as per other cases. The State opposed, arguing no illegality and that the court has discretion to impose conditions. The High Court referred to amendments and recent authorities, including Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KLT 26), which held that security should be liberally construed and that partial deposits with bonds can meet ends of justice. Accordingly, the court set aside the 30% deposit and bank guarantee, directing deposit of 10% of the vehicle’s value (₹72,500) and a bond for the balance with two solvent sureties, retaining other conditions. The release of the vehicle was kept pending completion of confiscation proceedings. The petition is disposed of.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 457 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureProtection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001Section 23A of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (Amendment XV/2013)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Security to be liberally construed
  • Ends of justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the conditions imposed by the Magistrate—deposit of 30% of the vehicle value and creation of a bank guarantee for the balance—are not proper in light of the introduction of Section 23A by Amendment XV/2013 (effective 25.11.2013). Citing Shan V. State of Kerala and Sujith V. State of Kerala, he argues custody can be granted on bond alone and seeks liberal construction of security as endorsed in newer authorities. The order should reflect the amended framework and favor a lesser deposit, with adequate security via bonds and sureties.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends there is no illegality in the Magistrate’s order; the court has discretion to impose conditions for interim custody under the Act and CrPC, and the amendment does not invalidate the underlying rationale or the Magistrate’s balancing of interests; the petition should be refused or restricted to the statutory framework.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Shan V. State of Kerala2010 (3) KLT 413Mentioned OnlyCited as a decision relied upon by the Magistrate; the present High Court does not adopt its holdings post-amendment but acknowledges its relevance to earlier practice.
Sujith V. State of Kerala2012 (2) KLT 547Mentioned OnlyCited similarly to Shan; referenced in noting the Magistrate’s reliance on prior authorities before Section 23A amendments.
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala2014 (3) KLT 26PositiveCited directly for the principle that security can be liberally construed and that partial deposits with bonds can meet ends of justice, guiding 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 Sharafuddin M.A. 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. 4004 of 2014** **----------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 1875/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HOSDRUG, DATED 29-03-2014 CRIME NO. 53/2014 OF NILESWAR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD** **-------------** **PETITIONER:** **------------------** **SHARAFUDDIN M.A., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED M.A., R/AT MUNAMBA HOUSE, CHENGALA P.O. CHENGALA VILLAGE, 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.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4004 of 2014** **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURS** **----------------------------------------** **ANNEXUR 1- CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 29-3-2014 PASSED BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HOSDURG IN CMP NO. 1875/2014.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURS** **-------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.4004 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-II, Hosdurg, in C.M.P.No.1875/2014 in Crime No.53/2014 of Nileshwar 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/3260, 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 case was registered under this Act. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1875/2014 before the Judicial First Class CRMC.4004/ 2014 2 Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, 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 30% of the value of the vehicle assessed by Joint RTO as 7,25,000/-. ₹ 2. The petitioner is directed to furnish bank guarantee or immovable property as security for the balance amount of the vehicle. 3. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the court as and when required. 4. The amount deposited and security furnished will follow the final out come of the confiscation proceedings. 5. The petitioner shall produce authenticated photographs of the vehicle also original documents of the vehicle for verification. 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.4004/ 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/3260, 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 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by Annexure- CRMC.4004/ 2014 4 I order with the above said conditions. 8. Condition Nos. 1 and 2 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.4004/ 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 and 2 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 ₹72,500/- and CRMC.4004/ 2014 6 execute a bond for the balance amount of 6,52,500/- with₹ two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, 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