Allowed

Jafar Thekkedath v. the Tahsildar and Others

Kerala HC22 Jan 2008Crl.MC/261/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted interim custody of a seized lorry to the petitioner under the Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The court held that despite the vehicle not being produced or reported to the Magistrate, custody could be granted relying on Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai. Custody was granted subject to a bond, deposit, and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The Mini lorry (Reg. No. KL-7E 2739) was granted interim custody to the petitioner upon depositing Rs. 25,000 or furnishing a bank guarantee and executing a bond with two solvent sureties subject to s

Jafar Thekkedath Vs the Tahsildar and Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 261 of 2008()

¶6

-----------------------CMP.121/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

JAFAR THEKKEDATH, S/O. ALAVI,

¶10

AGED 32 YEARS, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, KOOTTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, MALAPPURAM.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶16

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM.

¶17

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶21

*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 261 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 22-01-2008**

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner who is the owner of a vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-7E 2739 seeks interim custody of the same. The vehicle was seized by the revenue officials on 11-12-2007, alleging that sand was illegally transported in the vehicle in contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 “the Act” for short). The petitioner approached the J.F.C.M. Malappuram for interim custody of the vehicle which was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Malappuram Police Station but his request for interim custody was declined by the Magistrate holding that since the vehicle was not produced before Court and no report was forwarded under Sec. 102 (3) Cr.P.C. by any police officer, the application for interim custody filed under Sec. 457 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. Hence this Petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Even in cases where the seized vehicle is not produced before the Magistrate nor is the seizure reported to the Magistrate, the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. by the person aggrieved can be treated as a report of seizure. In as much as this Court has granted interim custody of vehicles seized under the provisions of the said Act, I see no reason why this vehicle also should not be released on interim custody, particularly in the light of the decision reported in

¶25

Crl.M.C. No. 261 of 2008

¶26

-:2:-

¶27

AIR 2003 SC 638 - Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat . Accordingly, the Mini lorry in question shall be released to the petitioner on interim custody on his depositing either a cash security of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) or furnishing bank guarantee for the said amount on and his executing a bond for Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.F.C.M., Malappuram without insisting on solvency certificate and subject to the following conditions.

¶28