Kerala High Court
State, Represented By The Assistant ... vs Chacko Mathew on 4 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 503 OF 2021 1
2026:KER:19243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 503 OF 2021
CRIME NO.4/2014 OF VAZHACHAL FOREST RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR
IN CC NO.591 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -
III, THRISSUR
PETITIONER:
STATE,
REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT WILDLIFE WARDEN
PEECHI- VAZHANI WILDLIFE SANCTUARY IN CRIME NO.OR
4/2014.
BY SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.SYAMANTHAK, PP
RESPONDENT:
CHACKO MATHEW
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW, CHALILVEETTIL HOUSE,
KALLAR VILLAGE, CHERUMBACHAL, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-671533.
BY ADV SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 503 OF 2021 2
2026:KER:19243
ORDER
Dated this the 04th day of March, 2026 The respondent's vehicle bearing registration No.KL-35/A-5666 was seized by the petitioner alleging that the accused used the vehicle in contravention of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ('Act', in short).
2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the respondent filed an application, under Section 451 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur ('learned Magistrate', for short). By Annexure A1 order, the learned Magistrate allowed the application, subject to conditions. One of the condition in the order was that the respondent shall furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.4,00,000/-. Subsequent to Annexure A1 order, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.1574/2020 to seize and confiscate the vehicle, and the respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.4909/2020 to lift the CRL.MC NO. 503 OF 2021 3 2026:KER:19243 condition directing him to furnish the bank guarantee for Rs.4,00,000/-. The learned Magistrate, consolidated and jointly heard the applications. By the impugned Annexure A2 order, the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the respondent, modifying the condition to furnish the bank guarantee and directed the respondent to execute a bond for Rs.4,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum. The application filed by the petitioner was not considered. Aggrieved by Annexure A2 order, the petitioner has filed the Crl.M.C
3. I have heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Going by the materials on record, it is seen that the vehicle in question was seized in 2017, that is about 9 years back. In view of the inordinate delay in seizing the vehicle the learned Magistrate granted interim custody of the vehicle to the respondent.
CRL.MC NO. 503 OF 2021 4
2026:KER:19243
5. One of the principle contentions raised in the Crl.M.C is that the learned Magistrate had no inherent jurisdiction to review his own order in view of Section 362 of Cr.P.C.
6. In Pathu v. State of Kerala and others [1975 KLT 696] and a catena of subsequent decisions this Court has held that, an order passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C is interlocutory in nature. The court does not become functus officio, and has the power to modify an interim custody order.
7. It was relying on the principles laid down in the above decisions, the learned Magistrate modified the condition in Annexure A1 order and directed the vehicle to be released to the respondent on him executing a bond for Rs.4,00,000/- with two solvent sureties. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said finding.
8. The other contention is that whether the vehicle used for committing an offence under the Act can CRL.MC NO. 503 OF 2021 5 2026:KER:19243 be released to its registered owner on interim custody.
9. In the above context, it is apposite to refer to Section 51(2) of the Act, which reads as follows:
"(2) When any person is convicted of an offence against this Act, the Court trying the offence may order that any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, trophy, uncured trophy, meat, ivory imported into India or an article made from such ivory, any specified plant, or part or derivative thereof in respect of which the offence has been committed, and any trap, tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon, used in the commission of the said offence be forfeited to the State Government and that any licence or permit, held by such person under the provisions of this Act, be cancelled."
10. A reading of the above provision establishes that it is only if an accused is convicted of the offence under the Act, a vehicle used to commit an offence under the Act, can be forfeited by the State Government.
11. In the case at hand, it is an undisputed fact that the trial in the case has not yet been completed, and the accused in the case has not been convicted. Therefore, the contention that the vehicle cannot be released on interim custody to its registered owner is untenable.
CRL.MC NO. 503 OF 2021 6
2026:KER:19243
12. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2002 (10) SCC 283], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has succinctly held that, the properties that have been seized in the crime have to be given in interim custody to its owner, in order to avoid the property getting ruined or destroyed, and also to avoid congestion in the police stations.
Taking into consideration the fact that the trial in C.C.No.591/2019 has not been completed, that the vehicle has been left exposed to the vagaries of nature for the last nine years, and further that there is no rival claimant for the vehicle, I am of the definite view that the interim custody of the vehicle is to be given to the respondent, which will ultimately be subject to the final outcome of C.C.No.591/2019. In case, the respondent is convicted, and the conviction attains finality, it will be upto the petitioner to forfeit the vehicle as envisaged under Section 51(2) of the Act. I do not find any error in Annexure A2 order granting interim custody of the vehicle to the respondent.
CRL.MC NO. 503 OF 2021 7
2026:KER:19243
Therefore, I confirm Annexure A2 order and direct the learned Magistrate to release the vehicle to the respondent, subject to him executing a bond for Rs.4,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, and specifically undertaking to comply with condition Nos.1 to 4 in Annexure A1 order. This order shall not stand in the way of the petitioner initiating proceedings under Section 51(2) of the Act in case, the respondent is convicted.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
CRL.MC NO. 503 OF 2021 8
2026:KER:19243
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 503 OF 2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.6.2018 IN
CMP NO.8326/2017 BEFORE THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-III THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.1.2021 IN CRL.MP.NO.4909/2020 IN CC NO.591/2019 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-III THRISSUR.