Kerala High Court
Sasi vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2016
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/21ST MAGHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 560 of 2017 ()
--------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 2332/2016 of J.M.F.C.-II, KASARAGOD
DATED 15-12-2016
CRIME NO. 559/2016 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED.:
----------------------
SASI
S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, MANJANGUZHI,
SHANKARAMANGALAM, PATTAMBI,
PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT.:
---------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANJESWAR POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT IN
CRIME NO.0559/2016 - 682031,
2. SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE,
MANJESWAR POLICE STATION,
KASARGODE DISTRICT. 67121.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RANJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 560 of 2017 ()
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADAVANCE TAX UTILIZATION RECEIPT DATED
27.9.2016.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE DATED 27.9.2016.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 27.9.2016, ISSUED BY THE
PULIMOOTTIL ENTERPRISES, PLOT NO.1248, CHALLIAGANUM-VIHAR CUTTAK,
ODISHA 8.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENTRY PASS AND EXIT PASS DATED
27.9.2016.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMTION REPORT IN CRIME
NO.0559/2016 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 30.9.2016.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED
9.11.2016 IN CRL.MC. 6780/2016.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2016 IN C.M.P
NO.2332/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRSTR CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KASARGOD.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
DTD.25.11.2016 IN CRIMINAL M.C.NO.7699/2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P. A. TO JUDGE
Pn
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl. M. C. No. 560 of 2017
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2017
O R D E R
The petitioner herein was originally charged with offences punishable under Section 379 IPC and Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. By order of this Court, the offences under Section 379 IPC and Section 20 of the Sand Act were quashed.
2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner sought for release of the vehicle by filing CMP No.2332/2016. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that, though the vehicle was ordered to be released, Annexure 8 order is silent about the sand. He seeks to release the sand accordingly.
3. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. From the impugned order it is clear that, the request was for release of the vehicle No.KA-01-AC-2609. However, having regard to the fact that the vehicle along with the sand was seized and the proceedings under the MMDR Act can continue in spite of quashing of the remaining proceedings of course, he is entitled to compound the offence in accordance with law or to contest the proceedings. The only anxiety of the Crl. M. C. No. 560 of 2017 2 learned Public Prosecutor was that, if the sand is ordered to be released without drawing samples and conducting test, probably a defence is likely to be set up in future regarding the quality of sand. However, that can be taken care of by directing that the sand may be released subject to drawing of the sample if the petitioner proposes to set up a defence touching upon the quality of the sand in future. Otherwise such a defence will not be available to them.
Crl.M.C. is allowed directing that the sand seized along with vehicle No.KA-01-AC-2609 will be released to the petitioner herein on he executing an additional bond for a sum of 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties subject to the condition that if they propose to set up a defence touching upon the quality of sand at the time of trial, the sample shall be drawn in accordance with law.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
Pn