Ibrahim. K vs The District Collector, Malappuram, UP Hill P.O, Malappuram 676505, The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram Dt. 679322 and The Sub Inspector of Police, Vazhakkad, Vazhakkad P.O, Malappuram Dt. 673640

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—Petitioner is the owner of a lorry bearing No. KL-13-P-3027. Said vehicle was intercepted by the 3rd respondent on 20.03.2012 at 05.30 A.M. The allegation is that the vehicle has been used to transport river sand without a valid pass. It is pointed out in the 3rd paragraph of the writ petition that the 3rd respondent Sub Inspector of Police has filed the report before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has no power now, as the Ordinance has lapsed. Petitioner also contends that 3rd respondent has not filed any report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate.

That the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction now is clear in the light of the fact that ordinance has lapsed. This point was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the decision reported in Raju V. Circle Inspect 2012 (2) KLT 350 wherein it is held that as the ordinance has elapsed, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has lost his jurisdiction. This Court has directed the District Collectors to conduct final adjudication and the Sub Inspector of Police to file a report before Jurisdictional Magistrate in the decision reported in Sujith Vs. State of Kerala, : Sujith Vs. State of Kerala, the decision reads as follows:

It is hereby ordered that the revenue and police authorities, while effecting seizure, shall ensure that any revenue official effecting the seizure, notifies such seizure, also to a police official, over and above the requirement in S.22 of the Act and the Rules. That police official may effect seizure of those goods and report such seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with law and any police officer effecting seizure shall, apart from reporting any such seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate, also place a report of such seizure before the concerned revenue authority so that action can follow through the criminal court and through the revenue authority in terms of the laws. Following the aforesaid, it is further ordered that in all pending cases, the competent police officer shall effect seizure and report the same to the jurisdictional magistrate, if not already done and the competent revenue authority shall make appropriate complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest. This would also enable the owners of the goods or vehicles to apply for interim custody in terms of S.451 or 457 Cr.P.C., as the case may be. In ordering release, the Judicial Magistrate shall be guided by the terms laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan Vs. State of Kerala, . The appropriate authorities shall also file complaints for initiating prosecution in all cases, where offences under the Act are disclosed. These directions shall apply in dealing with sand and vehicles, seized by the police or revenue authority under the provisions of the Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, over and above the directions in Moosakoya ( 2008 (1) KLT 538) and Thonikkadavath Shoukathali Vs. The Tahsildar and State of Kerala, , until appropriate legislative provisions are brought in.

Therefore there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to effect seizure and file a report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within a period 10 days from today. 1st respondent will complete the final adjudication proceedings after notice to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Petitioner will forward a certified copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition to the 3rd respondent for compliance.