Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)
Akhil vs The Sub Inspextor Of Police on 13 February, 2015 cites

C.T.Shan vs State Of Kerala Rep. By Its on 21 July, 2010

"13. Therefore, in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, 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 W.P.C. No. 8953 of 2015 -5- 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 Crl.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 (F.B.)]. The appropriate authorities shall also file complaints for initiating prosecution in all cases, where offences under the Act are disclosed.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 961 - J Chelameswar - Full Document

C.M.Aboobacker vs The State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2009

9. An issue had come up for consideration before this Court, challenging the condition imposed by a Judicial Magistrate, whereby 30% of the value of the vehicle was directed to be deposited and the balance to be satisfied by way of Bank guarantee or immovable property. The consequence of the amendment brought about was also the subject matter of W.P.C. No. 8953 of 2015 -9- consideration. It was pointed out from the part of the Public Prosecutor that, the amendment by virtue of Section 23A did not change the existing position, with regard to the course of action, to be pursued by the 'Confiscating Authority'. The net result of the amendment was only to pursue the prosecution proceedings, for which necessary base/foundation was put up as per the amendment; simultaneously giving power to the Judicial Magistrate to release interim custody of the vehicle on sufficient security, till the confiscation proceedings are finalised under Sub section 4 of Section 23A. Considering the particular facts and circumstances of the said case, it was observed by a learned Judge of this Court as per the decision reported in Aboobacker v. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KLT 26) that the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate was rather harsh and accordingly, the same was varied by causing the vehicle to be released on satisfaction of 15% of the value and on execution of a simple bond. After going through the relevant provisions of law, this Court finds that the power and procedure, as it existed earlier, have not undergone any substantial change, but for W.P.C. No. 8953 of 2015 -10- making the position clarified with regard to the prosecution proceedings to be pursued, also conferring authority upon the Judicial Magistrate to deal with the interim custody of the vehicle till the confiscation proceedings are finalised by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Kerala High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 51 - Full Document
1   2 Next