Kerala High Court
Mohammed Salim vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 25 August, 2013
Author: P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/18TH PHALGUNA, 1936
WP(C).No. 21245 of 2013 (E)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
MOHAMMED SALIM, S/O. KUNJU MOHAMMED,
AGED 42 YEARS, CHODIPPURATH HOUSE, MANOOR,
KALADY P.O., VATTAMKULAM VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM (OWNER OF A JCB BEARING
REGISTRATION NO. KL-54-B-2226).
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 507.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 21245 of 2013 (E)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 25-08-2013
PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
DATED 23-07-2013 IN WP(C).NO.18247 OF 2013.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C) No. 21245 of 2013
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 9th day of March, 2015
JUDGMENT
The vehicle bearing No. KL 54 B 2226 was seized by the respondent/S.I. of Police alleging offence under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The main ground of challenge is that, the respondent is not having the jurisdiction or authority to effect seizure.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. The authority of the respondent to effect seizure has already been considered by this Court and the power and competence has been upheld as per the decision reported in Aloshias C. Antony Vs. Government of Kerala [2014(1) KLT 536]. The said decision was rendered, also taking note of the nature of offence which is a 'cognizable' one (notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C) as stipulated in Section 21(6) of MMDR Act, 1957 and also placing reliance on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Construction Materials Movers Association V. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 909]. In the said circumstance, there is no tenable ground to call for interference.
W.P.(C) No. 21245 of 2013 : 2 :
4. When the matter came up for consideration on 27.08.2013, the vehicle was caused to be released, on satisfaction of a sum Rs.25,000/- and on execution of a simple bond. In the said circumstance, the further course of action required is to surrender the vehicle before the respondent, so as to enable the respondent to produce it before the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area and to proceed with steps for prosecution, unless the offence is sought to be compounded.
5. The petitioner expresses desire to compound the offence by virtue of the enabling provisions under the relevant provisions of law. This Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to have the offence compounded on satisfying the compounding fee of Rs.25,000/-. The amount ordered to be paid as per the interim order dated 27.08.2013 shall be treated as compounding fee and offence shall be treated as compounded. Once the offence is compounded, no prosecution proceedings will lie in view of the law declared by this Court in Digil Vs. Sub Inspector of Police [2013 (1) KLT 600]. It shall be reported to the concerned Magistrate, if the crime has already been reported. If there is any failure in satisfying the compounding fee, the respondent shall pursue further W.P.(C) No. 21245 of 2013 : 3 : steps in connection with the prosecution before the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd