High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-07-11Disposed of with modified interim custody condi...

Sundaran S/o Kelukutty v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.3856 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2014-07-11
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court disposed of the petition by modifying the interim custody conditions: the petitioner shall deposit 15% of the vehicle’s value (₹22,200) and execute a bond for the balance with two solvent sureties for the like sum; otherwise, the other existing conditions remain in place, and the release of the vehicle will continue until the completion of confiscation proceedings under the Act.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with modified interim custody conditions; the order modifies deposit and bond requirements while keeping other conditions intact; release of vehicle pending confiscation proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sundaran S/o Kelukutty

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the S.I of Police, Thiruvambady, Kozhikode District, by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T.K. Ajith Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor (SMT. S. Hyma)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition (Crl.MC No.3856 of 2014) before the Kerala High Court challenging an order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thamarassery, granting interim custody of a vehicle seized under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The Magistrate had allowed interim custody under CMP No.73/2014 with conditions including deposit of 30% of the vehicle’s value, presentation of registration and insurance documents, provision of security by bank guarantee or immovable property for the balance, and photographs of the vehicle, with a risk of confiscation if the vehicle was used for any illegal purpose. The petitioner contends that, after Amendment Act XV/2013 introducing Section 23A, the lower court failed to adopt a proper, liberal approach to interim custody and security. The State defends the order, arguing that courts have broad discretion to impose conditions to secure investigations and prevent misuse. The High Court notes that Section 23A altered the regime and cites Aboobacker v. State of Kerala to urge liberal construction of security and partial deposit with sureties. Consequently, the court sets aside conditions 1–6 and modifies them: the petitioner must deposit 15% of the vehicle’s value (₹22,200) and execute a bond for the balance with two solvent sureties; release remains subject to the continuation of confiscation proceedings, with other conditions retained. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Section 457 CrPCProtection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 - Section 23A

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Security mentioned therein has to be liberally construed.
Ends of justice must be met through the available security measures.
Balance between deposit and bond/sureties can meet ends of justice under liberal construction of security provisions (per Aboobacker v. State of Kerala).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the conditions imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate in CMP No.73/2014 are incompatible with the post-amendment regime under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 by Amendment Act XV/2013 (Section 23A). The court below based its order on pre-amendment practice reflected in Shan v. State of Kerala and Sujith v. State of Kerala. After the amendment, the petitioner argues for a liberal approach to security—favoring partial deposit and bond with sureties instead of a rigid 30% cash deposit. Citing Aboobacker v. State of Kerala, the petitioner seeks relief by reducing financial burden while safeguarding the investigation. The petitioner asserts that the amendment enables liberal security, and the court should disposes of the petition at admission with a modified framework that aligns with the current legal regime.

Contentions of Respondents

The State counters that the magistrate’s conditions were within the permissible discretion of the court and necessary to safeguard the investigation and ensure compliance with the Act. It argues there is no illegality in the order and that the court may impose reasonable conditions. Relying on the legislative amendment (Section 23A) and the prior decisions cited by the petitioner, the State maintains that the existing regime supports the court’s determinations in maintaining custody conditions until the confiscation process concludes. The Public Prosecutor contends the High Court should not second-guess discretionary judgments where security and compliance with statutory provisions are at stake.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan V. State of Kerala	2010 (3) KLT 413	Mentioned Only	Cited to reflect earlier reasoning for imposing conditions but treated as superseded by Section 23A and subsequent rulings.
Sujith V. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Mentioned Only	Referenced as part of the pre-amendment approach to interim custody; not followed due to amendments in the statute.
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala	2014 (3) KLT 26	Positive	Judicial reasoning in the present case relies on Aboobacker to endorse liberal construction of security deposits under the amended Act.

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 Sundaran S/o Kelukutty 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** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2014/20TH ASHADHA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3856 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CMP.NO.73/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II,THAMARASSERY -----------------------** **PETITIONER/PETITIONER :** **---------------------------------------** **SUNDARAN,S/O.KELUKUTTY, ARAMPURATH HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADI AMSOM, CHERUPRA DESOM, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR** **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT :** **----------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I OF POLICE, THIRUVAMBADY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, 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 11-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 3856 of 2014 () --------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **--------------------------------------------** **ANNEX-A. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/1/2014 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THAMARASSERY IN CMP NO.73/2014.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.3856 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-II, Thamarassery, in C.M.P.No.73/2014 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-10-H/4734, 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.73/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thamarassery, for interim custody of CRMC.3856/ 2014 2 the vehicle. The learned magistrate by Annexure-A order ## granted interim custody on conditions inter-alia that: 1. Interim custody of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL10H/4734 is given to the petitioner. 2.Original of the Registration certificate , and insurance certificate shall be produced before the investigating officer for verification. 3. Petitioner shall deposit 30% of the value of the vehicle (44,400/-) as fixed by the AMVI. 4. Petitioner shall provide either a bank guarantee or immovable property as security for the balance value of the vehicle. 5. Photographs of the vehicle shall be taken at the expense of the petitioner. 6. The vehicle shall not be used for any illegal purposes and in the event of the same being used for the commission of any offence under the Kerala Protection of River Bank and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, an amount of ₹44,400/deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the above said direction shall be confiscated forthwith. 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.3856/ 2014 3 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 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-10H/4734, 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 CRMC.3856/ 2014 4 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 same was allowed by ## Annexure-A order with following conditions. 1. Interim custody of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL10H/4734 is given to the petitioner. 2.Original of the Registration certificate , and insurance certificate shall be produced before the investigating officer for verification. 3. Petitioner shall deposit 30% of the value of the vehicle (44,400/-) as fixed by the AMVI. 4. Petitioner shall provide either a bank guarantee or immovable property as security for the balance value of the vehicle. 5. Photographs of the vehicle shall be taken at the expense of the petitioner. 6. The vehicle shall not be used for any illegal purposes and in the event of the same being used for the commission of any offence under the Kerala Protection of River Bank and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, an amount of ₹44,400/- deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the above said direction shall be confiscated forthwith. 8. Condition Nos. 1 to 6 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.** CRMC.3856/ 2014 5 **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 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”. CRMC.3856/ 2014 6 10. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision, the condition imposed by the court below, directing the petitioner to deposit 30% value of the vehicle and furnish bank guaranty 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 to 6 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 ₹22,200/- and execute a bond for the balance amount of 1,25,800/- with₹ two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, CRMC.3856/ 2014 7 Thamarassery. 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 CRMC.3856/ 2014 8