IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Friday, the 26th day of August 2022 / 4th Bhadra, 1944
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2022 IN CRL.REV.PET NO. 538 OF 2022
C RL.M.P NO. 2415/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHAVAKKAD.
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
KRISHNANAND, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. SADANANDAN, KUMBIL HOUSE, MALLADU,
PERAKAM. P.O., GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR., PIN - 580506
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN -
682031
2. VILLAGE OFFICER ,CHAVAKKAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR., PIN - 580506
3. VILLAGE OFFICER, MANATHALA VILLAGE ,THRISSUR.,PIN-580506.
SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 05.08.2022 in
Crl.RP 538/2022
Application praying that in the circumstances stated thereIn the
High Court be pleased to release the JCB bearing Regn No.KL-46 L 3958 to
the petitioner/claimant as interim custody pending disposal of the Crl
Revision petition by allowing this petition.
This application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and this Court's order dated 05.08.2022 in Crl.RP 538/2022, and upon
hearing the arguments of SHRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN and SMT. N.P.ASHA,
Advocates for the petitioners and the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the 1st
respondent, the Court passed the following:
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
---------------------
Crl.R.P .No.538 of 2022
---------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022
ORDER
Admit.
Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondents. Crl.M.A No.1 of 2022 This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad in C.M.P No. 2415/2022, by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.P.C for release of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL 46 L 3958 was rejected. The aforesaid vehicle was seized by the Village Officer, Manathatla, alleging contravention of the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application, as the seizure is not reported to the Court, as contemplated under Section 102 Cr.P.C.Therefore, it was found that the learned Magistrate does not have the jurisdiction to invoke the powers under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment by a Division Bench of this Court in Sujith v. State of Kerala and Others [2012 (2) KLT 547] wherein, a Crl.R.P NO.538 of 2022 2 similar issue which arose in connection with the violation of the provisions of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Sand Act was considered. Apart from the above, he placed on record various orders passed by this Court in various Crl.M.Cs in which the release of the vehicle to the respective owners regarding the allegation of violation of the Paddy Land Act.
3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would point out that, after the seizure of the vehicle, the matter is reported by the Village Officer to the District Collector in compliance with the stipulations in Section 19(1) of the Act and the confiscation proceedings are being initiated as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act. The specific case of the learned Public Prosecutor is that, since the obligation of the officer who seized the vehicle is to report the matter to the District Collector to initiate further action and not to the court, the learned Magistrate would not get the jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim custody. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the question of interim custody can only be considered by the District Collector.
4. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision in the Act does not contemplate any powers for the District Collector for the release of the vehicle as an Crl.R.P NO.538 of 2022 3 interim measure. The only provision that deals with the powers of the Collector in relation to the same are under Section 20 of the Act, which is pertaining to the confiscation proceedings and release of the vehicle in lieu of confiscation.
5. After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that this is a matter to be considered in detail. However, since the vehicle has been kept in the Police Station after seizure by the Village Officer for the past four months, some arrangements have to be made regarding its interim custody. Therefore, I am of the view that, for the time being, the vehicle can be released to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. There is indeed a fair amount of dispute as to the competence of the learned Magistrate with regard to the power to entertain an application for interim custody. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, the vehicle can be released to the petitioner upon the petitioner executing a bond before the learned Magistrate concerned, for the time being. This is only an interim arrangement, which shall be subject to further orders passed by this court.
In the result, it is ordered that the vehicle be released to the petitioner, upon executing a bond for the amount equal to the value of the vehicle, which shall be fixed by the learned Magistrate, with Crl.R.P NO.538 of 2022 4 two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. The petitioner shall undertake that the vehicle shall be produced before the Court or the District Collector as and when necessary. The petitioner shall not use the vehicle for the commission of any of the offences under the Act. H/o Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE rpk 26-08-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar