Abdul Rasheed vs State of Kerala

K. Ramakrishnan, J.—This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner challenging the order in C.M.P. No. 4084/2014 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-11-W-3581, which was seized by the respondent on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transporting of river sand in violation of the provisions of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter called ''the Act''). The petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 4084/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned magistrate by Annexure-A order granted interim custody on conditions inter-alia that:

Petitioner shall execute bond for 1,10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

Petitioner shall Deposit 33,000/- in the court.

Petitioner shall produce security of bank guarantee for 97,000/-.

Petitioner shall produce photograph and CD of the vehicle.

Station house officer is directed to prepare a panchanama of the vehicle.

Petitioner shall produce attested true copy of RC.

Petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the court as and when directed.

The above conditions are being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.

Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact the condition imposed by the court below is not proper in view of inclusion of Section ''23A'' to the above said Act by Amendment Act XV/2013 which came into force from 25.11.2013. Further this court in another case granted custody by executing a bond alone.

The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that, there is no illegality in the order passed. A discretion has been given to the court to impose any condition.

It is an admitted fact that the vehicle with No. KL-11-W-3581, which belongs to the petitioner, alleging that it was used for the commission of the offence under the above said Act. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner had filed an application for interim custody under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by Annexure-A order with following conditions.

Petitioner shall execute bond for 1,10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

Petitioner shall Deposit 33,000/- in the court.

Petitioner shall produce security of bank guarantee for 97,000/-.

Petitioner shall produce photograph and CD of the vehicle.

Station house officer is directed to prepare a panchanama of the vehicle.

Petitioner shall produce attested true copy of RC.

Petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the court as and when directed.

Condition Nos. 1 to 3 are being challenged by the petitioner now. It appears that, the learned magistrate had, keeping in mind the decision of this court in Shan Vs. State of Kerala, and Sujith Vs. State of Kerala, , imposed these conditions and the present Section 23A, which has been incorporated by Amendment Act XV/2013, which came into force with effect from 25.11.2013 has not been taken note of by the court below.

After the above decisions, the Act has been amended by incorporating Section 23A , which deals with the procedure to be followed after seizure, and also power of the court for giving interim custody. This court has considered that provision in Aboobacker T.H. Vs. State of Kerala, , wherein this court has held that:

"The security mentioned therein, has to be liberally construed and a portion of the amount can be directed to be deposited and for the balance amount, the personal bond with sureties can be directed to be executed and that will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice".

In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision, the conditions imposed by the court below, directing the petitioner to deposit 30% value of the vehicle and furnish bank guaranty for the balance amount has to be set aside and the same can be modified as follows:

The petitioner shall deposit 20% of the value assessed by the Motor Vehicle Department and also execute a bond for the balance amount with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of that court will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice. So condition Nos. 1 to 3 imposed by the court below is set aside and the same is modified, retaining the other conditions and those conditions are modified as follows:

The petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the value assessed for the vehicle, namely 22,000/- and execute a bond for the balance amount of 88,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram.

Further, the release of the vehicle will be till the completion of confiscation proceedings under this Act. Other conditions imposed by the court below is retained.

With the above modification of the conditions imposed, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court and also hand over a copy of the order to the counsel for the petitioner to produce the same before the court below.