The High Court directed the Sub Inspector to forward seizure documents to the Sub Divisional Magistrate within two days and mandated that confiscation proceedings under the Sand Act be concluded within six weeks.
Petitioner to appear before RDO; proceedings to commence immediately and be concluded within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2015/1ST JYAISHTA, 1937
WP(C).No. 14715 of 2015 (L)
PETITIONER(S):
AJITH KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O BALAN, NAGALATH, MALAYATTOOR P.O. MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-17-B-7341).
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN:683537.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO), FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN:682001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.SHERIN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 14715 of 2015 (L)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AS NO.595 DATED 6.6.2012 OF KALADY POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHASSAR DATED 6.6.2012 PREPARED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CASH MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE MALAYATTOOR-NEELEESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 6.6.2012.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
W.P.C. No.14715 of 2015
--------------------------------------Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2015.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the seizure of the vehicle effected as per Ext.P2 Mahazar. The allegation on which the seizure was effected is that the vehicle was carrying river sand in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. A crime was registered as per the provisions of the Act as indicated in Ext.P1 FIR. The vehicle also is said to have been produced before the Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate. However, the provisions of the Sand Act of 2001 mandate criminal proceedings against the offender as also confiscation proceedings against the vehicle, the latter of which has to be carried out by the Jurisdictional SubDivisional Magistrate. The confiscation proceedings are to be carried out as per Section 23A of the Act of 2001, by the Sub-
WP(C) No.14715 of 2015
2
Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area. It is also indicated in Section 23A(1) that the documents to enable the commencement of confiscation proceedings, have to be forwarded to the Jurisdictional Sub Divisional Magistrate within 48 hours from the seizure. The petitioner is aggrieved in so far as the Jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Magistrate having not commenced the confiscation proceedings as aforesaid, which prejudices the petitioner in so far as interdicting interim custody of the vehicle. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has a valid pass at Ext.P3, which contention has to be considered by the appropriate authority.
proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code as also for confiscation under the Sand Act of 2001, the jurisdiction for which is respectively conferred on the Jurisdictional Judicial
WP(C) No.14715 of 2015
3
Magistrate and the Jurisdictional Sub Divisional Magistrate. On the question of interim custody, it has been declared that both the Sub Divisional Magistrate as also the Judicial Magistrate have such powers, which are to be exercised on the principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 413]. The present petitioner is not concerned with the interim custody of the vehicle and only prays that the confiscation proceedings be concluded within a specific period.
WP(C) No.14715 of 2015
4
The entire exercise with respect to the confiscation shall be concluded within a period of six weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the 2nd respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
sp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sub Inspector must forward seizure documents to the Sub Divisional Magistrate within 48 hours.
Whether the confiscation proceedings under Sand Act 2001 must be concluded within a specific period.
What reliefs the High Court should grant regarding the delay in confiscation proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Faisal V. Assistant Sub CollectorReferred¶34
[2015 (1) KLT 949]
Shan C.T. v. State of KeralaReferred¶36
[2010 (3) KLT 413]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
AJITH KUMAR
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO), FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
