Kerala High Court
Latheef vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2025
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
Crl.M.C.No.4439/25
1
2025:KER:44451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 4439 OF 2025
CRIME NO.240/2024 OF Thrithala Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.2097 OF
2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , PATTAMBI
PETITIONER:
LATHEEF
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT GAVESHANATHINTE
KIZHAKKATHIL HOUSE, KRISHNAPURAM, P.O, ALAPUZHA
DISTRICT-, PIN - 690533
BY ADVS.
SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH
SMT.ABHIRAMI S.
SHRI.ABDUL LATHEEF P.M.
SHRI.PRASEED V.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
THRITHALA POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-, PIN - 679534
Crl.M.C.No.4439/25
2
2025:KER:44451
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH MURALI, PP.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.06.2025, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.4439/25
3
2025:KER:44451
V.G.ARUN, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.M.C.No.4439 of 2025
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner's lorry bearing Registration No.KL 29 W
0457 was seized in connection with Crime No.240 of 2024
registered at the Thrithala Police Station alleging commission
of offences punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34
IPC and Sections 20 and 21 of the Kerala Protection of River
Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 ('the Act'
for short). The petitioner's application seeking interim custody
of the vehicle was allowed by Annexure-C order subject to
certain conditions. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding
Condition No.1 which requires him to deposit 30% of the total
value of the vehicle assessed at Rs.20,75,000/- by the Assistant
Motor Vehicle Inspector.
2025:KER:44451
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his
client is prepared to furnish bank guarantee for the full value of
the vehicle, but is not in a position to deposit 30% of the value.
According to the learned counsel, the purpose behind
furnishing security being to safeguard the interest of the State,
the objective can be attained by furnishing bank guarantee
also.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the court
below has imposed the conditions following the Full Bench
decision of this Court in Shan C.T v. State of Kerala and
Others [2010 (3) KHC 333]. It is submitted that the deposited
amount can be utilised by the State for various purposes,
including rejuvenation of rivers dried up due to indiscriminate
sand mining. The said purpose cannot be achieved if security is
furnished in the form of bank guarantee.
4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the decision in Shan (supra) with respect to the
manner of furnishing security cannot be taken as a binding
2025:KER:44451
precedent since no reasons are stated for imposing the
condition of depositing 30% of the value of the vehicle in cash
and the balance in the form of bank guarantee. It is argued
that if the Full Bench decision is strictly followed, the
confiscation proceedings should be completed within six weeks.
As the above timeline is not being followed, it is not open for
the prosecution to contend that the conditions in the Full Bench
order should be imposed without modification.
5. In Shan (supra), the Full Bench was answering the
reference with respect to the procedure to be followed while
granting interim custody of the vehicle seized by the authorities
functioning under the provisions of the Act. The issue had
arisen since neither the Act nor the Rules thereunder provides
for the interim custody of the seized vehicles. After elaborate
consideration, the Full Bench opined that interim custody of the
vehicles can be granted on condition that the owner of the
vehicle deposits 30% of the value of the vehicle as determined
by the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act in
2025:KER:44451
cash and a further condition that the owner should provide
either bank guarantee or immovable property as security for
the balance of the value of the vehicle. The reasons that had
prompted the Full Bench to fix such conditions is discernible
from paragraph 10 of the judgment extracted below;
"10. Eventually if the vehicle is confiscated, the owner of the
vehicle would lose the entire value of the vehicle. It is a
different matter in a given case, the vehicle may be liable for
confiscation or not depending upon the evidence in that case.
While making an order for interim custody of the vehicle in
favour of the owner, against whom proceedings for confiscation
of the vehicle are pending, the Court will not only take into
consideration the interest of the owner of the vehicle, but also
the interest of the State, the object of the legislation and larger
public interest which is sought to be achieved by the
confiscation of the vehicle. The full value of the vehicle must be
safeguarded before directing the State to part with the custody
of the vehicle in favour of the owner. The very fact that the
Legislature of Kerala thought it fit to bring in a special legislation
to prevent indiscriminate excavation of sand from the river
banks indicates the magnitude of the problem."
2025:KER:44451
6. A reading of the above paragraphs make it clear that
the conditions are so fixed taking into consideration the interest
of the owner of the vehicle, the interest of the State, the object
of the legislation and larger public interest that is sought to be
achieved by the confiscation of the vehicle. The Full Bench was
of the considered opinion that full value of the vehicle must be
safeguarded before directing the State to part with the custody
of the vehicle in favour of the owner. Therefore, the contention
that the direction to deposit 30% in cash and the balance in the
form of bank guarantee or title deeds is not of binding nature
can only be rejected.
In the result, the Crl.M.C.is dismissed.
sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
sj
2025:KER:44451
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A A TRUE COPY OF THE RC CERTIFICATE OF
THE ALLEGED MAHINDRA LORRY OWNED BY THE
PETITIONER
Annexure-B A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
Annexure-C A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
07/04/2025 IN C.M.P. NO. 2097/2025 OF
THE HON'BLE JFCM COURT, PATTAMBI
