Disposed

Ajeesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Jun 2016Crl.MC/4030/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous case, the petitioner challenged the seizure of two vehicles under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The court directed the Sub Inspector of Police to report the seizure before the jurisdictional Magistrate and ordered the Magistrate to consider applications for interim custody expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to report the seizure of vehicles before the jurisdictional Magistrate; Magistrate to consider interim custody applications within 3 days.

Ajeesh Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4030 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.961/2016 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. AJEESH, S/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 27 YEARS, KOLLAMPARAMBIL, ANNALLOOR VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL 5 S 6261)

¶9

2. K.P. BIJU, S/O.POULOSE, AGE 35 YEARS, KODIYAN HOUSE, POOOZHOR P.O., CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, (OWNER OF JCB BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL 45 E 9652)

¶10

3. SHIBIN, S/O.BENNY, AGED 23 YEARS, PARAPPURAM HOUSE, KUDUPPASSERY P.O., VELLUKKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, (DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL 5 S 6261)

¶11

4. VINU, S/O. WILSON, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, AGED 26 YEARS, VELAMBALLOOR VILLAGE, KALPARAMBA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, (DRIVER OF JCB BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL 45 E 9652)

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶13

--2--

¶14

--2--

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 4030 of 2016 ()

¶16

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶17

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

¶18

2.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶19

3.THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶20

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

mbr/

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 4030 of 2016 ()

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES:

¶26

ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHASSAR DATED 22.6.2016 PREPARED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶32

- - - - Crl.M.C. No. 4030 of 2016

¶33

- - - - Dated 30^th June, 2016

¶34

¶35

ORDER

¶36

1.Two vehicles bearing registration Nos.KL-5S 6261 & KL45-E 9652 owned by the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners were seized on 22.6.2016 by the 2^nd respondent/Sub Inspector of Police on the allegation that the same was used for contravening the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015.

¶37

2.It is submitted that the said vehicles have been produced before the District Collector for adjudication. According to the learned Counsel, the Kerala Minerals ( Prevention of Illegal Mining , Storage and Transportation ) Rules , 2015 (referred to as the Transportation Rules for brevity) has been enacted and the said rules govern the taking of cognizance of the offence. Referring to Rule 30 of the Transportation Rules it is submitted that only the jurisdictional court can take cognizance and the complaint can only be filed by the designated officers as notified under G.O.(P) No 77/2015/ID dated 5.6.2015. It is also

¶38

Crl.M.C. No.4030 of 2016

¶39

-2-

¶40

submitted that as the seizure was effected under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, necessarily the seizure has to be reported before the learned Magistrate under Section 102 (3) of the Code. It is finally submitted that the seizure of the vehicles have not been reported till date before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶41

3.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the 2^nd respondent is directed to report the seizure of the vehicles bearing registration Nos. KL-5-S 6261 & KL-45-E 9652 before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the application, if any, filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 for Interim Custody in accordance with law and pass orders on the same expeditiously, at any rate within 3 days from the receipt of this order.

¶42

The petition is disposed off as above.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶45

kp/-1.7.16

Ajeesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vittal Rai Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Anees Vs State of Kerala

Benny Vs State of Kerala

John M.Kuriakose Vs the Superintendent of Police

Subash Chand Jain Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Lekha Surendran Vs P.v.Sreedharan