Petitioner challenged non-reporting of seized vehicle seizure to Magistrate. Court held seizure under Section 102 Cr.P.C. requires immediate reporting to Magistrate. Directed Police to report forthwith.
Directed 2nd respondent to report seizure to Magistrate forthwith and inform 3rd respondent; Petitioner permitted to apply for custody upon reporting.
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.
Crl.M.C.No.9682/22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 9682 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
FAISAL C.K,
S/O.KUNHALAVI HAJI, CHALATTIL KALLADITHODI HOUSE, PERUMPARAMBA MELMURI P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676 517.
BY ADV.P.T.SHEEJISH
RESPONDENTS:
ADV SREEJA V. -SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
Crl.M.C.No.9682/22 2
ON 03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.9682/22
3
O R D E R
The petitioner is the owner of a mini tipper lorry bearing Registration No.KL-10-BD-7826. The said vehicle was seized by the 2nd respondent on 13.12.2022 on the allegation that the said vehicle was used for transporting of red earth in violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The grievance of the petitioner is that, even though the said vehicle was seized on 13.12.2022, the factum of the seizure is not reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate as contemplated under Section 102 (3) of Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No.9682/22
4
attention of this Court to Annexure-C order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.945 of 2017, in which a case of similar nature was considered and a direction was issued to the Police to report the matter to the jurisdictional Magistrate within a stipulated time. After going through the entire materials, I am of the view that the power of the 2nd respondent to seize the vehicle is governed under Section 102 Cr.P.C and therefore, he has an obligation to report the matter to the jurisdictional Magistrate immediately after effecting such seizure. If no such reporting is made, it amounts to violation of the statutory provisions.
Crl.M.C.No.9682/22
5
Upon reporting of the seizure of the vehicle and submission of application for release of the said vehicle, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
DG/3.1.23
Crl.M.C.No.9682/22
6
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9682/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE TIPPER LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-10-BD-7826 Annexure B TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED: 13.12.2022 PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C.NO. 945/2017 DATED 08.02.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the police officer has an obligation to report a vehicle seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 102 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
FAISAL C.K
STATE OF KERALA
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VANITHA POLICE STATION
THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
