Mohammed vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 788 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

     FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

                       Crl.MC.No.5810 OF 2020(E)


PETITIONER/S:

                MOHAMMED
                AGED 65 YEARS
                S/O.ABOOBACKER, ANJILIMOOTTIL HOUSE, V.K.C P.O.,
                ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (OWNER OF A TIPPER
                LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-07-CH-1535).

                BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
                KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

      2         THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683517.

      3         THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
                MULAVUKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683517.

      4         THE SUB COLLECTOR,
                FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682001.


OTHER PRESENT:

                PP T.R.RENJITH

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.5810 OF 2020(E)     ..2..




                             ORDER

Dated this the 8th day of January 2021

The petitioner claims to be the owner of a

Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KL-07-CH-

1535. The said vehicle was seized by the 3rd

respondent on 01.12.2020 on the allegation of

having used the vehicle for conversion of paddy land

in violation of the provisions of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act,

2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that

respondents 2 to 4 failed to report the seizure of the

vehicle to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. The

petitioner rely on Section 102(3) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure to contend that the respondents

2 to 4 are duty bound to report the seizure to the

jurisdictional Magistrate Court, failing which the Crl.MC.No.5810 OF 2020(E) ..3..

petitioner will be denied an opportunity to move for

interim custody under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

2. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

vehicle was seized by the 3rd respondent as directed

by the 4th respondent and handed over to the Police

for custody.

I find merit in the contention that, having

seized the vehicle, the respondents 2 to 4 are bound

to report the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate

Court. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C is disposed of with

the following directions;

(i) The competent among respondents 2

to 4 shall report seizure of the vehicle

bearing registration No.KL-07-CH-1535

covered by Annexure-I to the jurisdictional

Magistrate Court within one week of receipt

of a copy of a copy of this judgment.

Crl.MC.No.5810 OF 2020(E) ..4..

(ii) On such report being submitted,

the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit

application seeking interim custody of the

vehicle.

(iii) The application for interim custody,

if any filed, shall be considered by the

jurisdictional Magistrate and appropriate

orders passed without delay.

Sd/-

                                        V.G.ARUN
      SB/08/01/2021                       JUDGE
 Crl.MC.No.5810 OF 2020(E)     ..5..




                            APPENDIX
      PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:



      ANNEXURE 1        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

20.10.2020 IN CRL.M.C.NO.4203 OF 2020.

                     //true copy//    P.A to Judge