Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Beegum Fousiya Jafar E.J vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 4620 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4620 Ker
Judgement Date : 28 February, 2025

Kerala High Court

Beegum Fousiya Jafar E.J vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2025

Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

 FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1946

                         CRL.MC NO. 863 OF 2025

        AGAINST    THE   ORDER/JUDGMENT   DATED   02.08.2024   IN   CMP

NO.5141 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,

ALAPPUZHA

PETITIONER:

            BEEGUM FOUSIYA JAFAR E.J
            AGED 28 YEARS
            WIFE OF NOUFAL M.N, MADATHIKALAYIL HOUSE,
            MIDAYIKUNNAM, VADIYAR, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM,
            PIN - 686605


            BY ADVS.
            P.M.ZIRAJ
            IRFAN ZIRAJ




RESPONDENTS:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT
            OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

    2       THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
            ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN -
            688001



OTHER PRESENT:
 Crl.MC.No.863/2025
                                   2




                                                      2025:KER:23605

            SRI. M.C. ASHI, PP.


      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   28.02.2025,     THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   PASSED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.863/2025
                                      3




                                                           2025:KER:23605



                                V.G.ARUN, J
                     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                          Crl.M.C.No.863 of 2025
                     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                  Dated this the 28th day of February, 2025


                                  ORDER

Petitioner's lorry bearing registration No.KL 29 D 0022

was seized by the 2nd respondent on 08.06.2024 alleging

violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Act ("the MMDR Act" for short).

Later, petitioner moved the jurisdictional Magistrate Court with

a petition seeking interim custody of her vehicle. After taking

note of the fact that no crime is registered pursuant to the

seizure of petitioner's vehicle and further proceedings are

pending before the District Collector, the Magistrate passed

Annexure 1 order directing release of the vehicle subject to

stringent conditions. As per Condition No.7, petitioner is

required to deposit 30% of the value of the vehicle and furnish

2025:KER:23605

security for the balance amount. Condition No.8 requires the

petitioner to unload the river sand in the vehicle in the

premises of the police station. This Crl.M.C is filed seeking

deletion of Condition Nos.7 and 8 in Annexure 1 order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

direction to deposit 30% of the value of the vehicle and furnish

security for the balance amount is issued following the Full

Bench decision of this Court in Shan v. State of Kerala [2010

(3) KLT 413]. It is contended that the decision in Shan (supra)

was rendered in the context of siezure of vehicles under the

Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of

Sand Act, 2001, ("the Sand Act" for short), and cannot

therefore be made applicable to seizure under the provisions of

the MMDR Act and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

This aspect has been clarified in Sasi v. State of Kerala [2013

(4) KLT 731]. It is pointed out that, under similar

circumstances, this Court in Suresh v. State of Kerala [order

in Crl.M.C.No.3597 of 2016] had altered the condition of

2025:KER:23605

depositing 30% of the value of the vehicle, to deposit

Rs.25,000/-, taking note of the decision in Sasi (supra). The

Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.1889 and 1890 of 2015, has

also issued an interim direction to release vehicles seized under

the provisions of the MMDR Act on deposit of Rs.25,000/-. As

regards Condition No.8 in Annexure 1, learned counsel

contended that the direction was issued without application of

mind, as would be evident from the fact that the vehicle

contained ordinary sand and not river sand.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Section 21 of

the MMDR Act empowers the competent officer to confiscate

vehicles seized for violating the provisions of the Act. It is the

submission of the Public Prosecutor that in certain enactments

provision for confiscation is included in larger public interest

and to prevent recurrence of the violation. The objective behind

empowerment of the competent officer, to confiscate seized

vehicles, is to prevent rampant illegal mining of minerals,

resulting in environmental degradation. It is the submission of

2025:KER:23605

the Public Prosecutor that, leniency in the matter of interim

custody of vehicles may lead to disastrous results.

4. It is true that the power of confiscation is conferred on

the competent officer with the laudable objective of preventing

rampant illegal mining of minerals. In the case at hand, the

allegation is of having transported ordinary earth, which is a

minor mineral. Under Section 3 of the MMDR Act 'minerals'

and 'minor minerals' are separately defined. As per Section 15

of the Act, the State Government is granted the power to make

rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases or other mineral

concessions in respect of minor minerals. Accordingly, the

Government formulated and notified the Kerala Minor Mineral

Concession Rules, 2015 to deal with the mining of minor

minerals. As such the rigour attached to the seizure and

consequential confiscation of minerals and conveyances may

not strictly apply to minor minerals. Further, as contended, the

Full Bench decision in Shan (supra) was rendered in the

context of seizure and confiscation under the Sand Act. Being

2025:KER:23605

so, I am in agreement with the order in Suresh (supra),

wherein the vehicle was directed to be released on deposit of

Rs.25,000/-. As far as Condition No.8 is concerned, as noted

earlier, the petitioner's vehicle was not carrying river sand and

even otherwise, direction to deposit the entire load in the

police station premises is impracticable.

For the aforementioned reasons, Condition No.8 in

Annexure 1 is deleted and Condition No.7 is modified as under;

"The petitioner shall deposit Rs.25,000/- and execute bond

for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties."

All other conditions shall remain as such.

sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE sj

2025:KER:23605

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2024 IN C.M.P.NO.5141 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-

I, ALAPPUZHA

Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI V. STATE OF GUJARAT 2003 (2) KLT 1089 SC

Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS)NO.51/2017/ID

Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF CRL.M.C NO.4440 OF 2024

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter