Remanded

Vimal Raju v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jun 2017Crl.MC/4035/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Miscellaneous case, the High Court of Kerala held that although the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle by the Deputy Tahsildar violated procedural mandates, the direction to report to the Magistrate within four days was constitutionally sound. The court ordered the Authority to report the seizure to the Magistrate within four days.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent (Deputy Tahsildar) is directed to report the seizure of the vehicle to the Magistrate within four days. If an application is filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate may disp

Vimal Raju Vs the State of Kerala — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/1ST ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4035 of 2017 ()

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

VIMAL RAJU, S/O. SREEDHARAN RAJU, POONTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, PATHIRIYAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV. BABU S. NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, EERNAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121.

¶12

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AMJAD ALI

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rvs.

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 4035 of 2017 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23-05-2017

¶20

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGIST, MANJERI DATED 19-05-2017

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs.

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶27

Crl.M.C. No. 4035 of 2017

¶28

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2017

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶31

2.The petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle seized

¶32

by the 2^nd respondent, Deputy Tahsildar, under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the MMDR Act. The complaint is that the seizure has not been reported to the Magistrate concerned.

¶33

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

4.There is no doubt that the 2^nd respondent should have reported the seizure to the Magistrate. He shall report it within four days.

¶35

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to report seizure of the vehicle within four days to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. If an application is filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate may dispose of it after obtaining reports of the geologist and the Station House Officer.

¶36

Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶37

bka/-

Vimal Raju v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Raju v. the 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

Sameer Pasha Vs District Police Chief

Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Nazar K.T. Vs Station House Officer

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Abu Cheriyil Vs State of Kerala

Baskaran @ Bhasi Vs Jayapradeep K.O.