Kerala High Court
Mohammed Ali vs The District Collector on 20 April, 2012
Author: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/21ST JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 13416 of 2012 (B)
---------------------------
PETITIONER :
--------------------
MOHAMMED ALI,
KARUNIYAN HOUSE, MATTATHOOR, OTHUKKUNGAL
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SRI.V.C.SARATH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
MALAPPURAM-678001.
2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
PERINTHALMANNA-678103.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION-678 001.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 13416 of 2012 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE VEHICLE OF
PETITIONER BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL-10-Y-4294.
EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE FITNESS CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE VEHICLE OF
PETITIONER BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL-10-Y-4294.
EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.1645/2012 OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM DATED 20.4.2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.13416/2012-B
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner's goods vehicle having registration No.KL 10 Y 4294 was seized on 12/09/2011 on the alleged transportation of river sand without valid documents. Going by the averments in the writ petition, after the seizure of the vehicle, the third respondent submitted a report before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna. According to the petitioner, the final order has not been passed in the confiscation proceedings so far.
2. The petitioner moved the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code for getting interim custody of the vehicle. But the learned Magistrate rejected the same as per Ext.P3 pointing out that the vehicle has not been produced before that court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. Evidently, the Sub Divisional Magistrate will not have jurisdiction in the light of the fact that the Ordinance has lapsed as evident from the Judgment of this Court in Raju vs. Circle Inspector [2012 (2) KLT 350]. Therefore, the final adjudication can only be done by the District Collector now. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Sujith vs. State of Kerala [2012 (2) KLT W.P.(C). No.13416/2012 -:2:- 547] wherein, this Court has directed that in all pending matters, a report will be filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court "for enabling the parties to file appropriate application to get interim custody of the vehicle". The relevant portion of the Judgment 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 v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 413 (FB). The appropriate authorities shall also file complaints for initiating prosecution in all cases, where W.P.(C). No.13416/2012 -:3:- 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 Shoukathali (2009 (1) KLT 640), until appropriate legislative provisions are brought in."
Herein, it is evident from Ext.P3 that so far no report has been submitted.
5. In the light of the above, if adjudication proceedings have not been finalised so far by the District Collector, there will be a direction to the third respondent to file a report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, within a period of one week from the date of production of a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the Judgment, for enabling the petitioner to file appropriate application seeking interim custody of the vehicle. The petitioner will communicate the copy of the Judgment to the third respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
Sd/-
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms