Praveenkumar vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 811 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.5820 OF 2020(F)


PETITIONER/S:

                PRAVEENKUMAR
                AGED 40 YEARS
                S/O. KUNJUMON, VADAKKETHARA HOUSE, PUTHUVYPE P.O.,
                PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
                (OWNER OF A TIPPER BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-40 D
                2221)

                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,
                FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682001.


     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.5820 OF 2020(F)         ..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-40-D-2221. 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 petitioner will be denied an

opportunity to move for interim custody under Section Crl.MC.No.5820 OF 2020(F) ..3..

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 4 th

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-40-D-2221

covered by Annexure-I to the jurisdictional

Magistrate Court within one week of

receipt of a copy of a copy of this judgment.

(ii) On such report being submitted, Crl.MC.No.5820 OF 2020(F) ..4..

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.5820 OF 2020(F)           ..5..




           APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 5820/2020
    PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:


    ANNEXURE 1         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

20/10/2020 IN CRL. M.C NO.4203/2020

//true copy// P.A to Judge