Krishnanand vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 9753 Ker

                  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

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

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

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