This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the conditions imposed in Crl.M.P.No.682/2014 in Crime No.120/2014 of Melatur Police Station of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that he is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11X-5636, which was seized by Melattur Police in connection with Crime No.120/2014 of that police station alleging involvement of the vehicle in a commission of offence under Sections 20 & 23 of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. (Hereinafter called as Act). He filed an application under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned magistrate and by Annexure A1 order, learned magistrate allowed the application with conditions inter alia that the petitioner shall deposit 30% of the value of the vehicle in cash before court and provide security of immovable property for the amount of Rs.94,500/- or furnish bank guarantee for that amount along with other conditions. These two conditions are being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.
3. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conditions were imposed by the learned magistrate on the basis of the decision of this court in Sujith Vs. State of Kerala [2012 (2) KLT 547] and Shan Vs. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 413]. But, thereafter, Section 23A has been incorporated to the said Act whereby some relaxation has been made regarding the condition for releasing the vehicle which has not been considered by the court below. In similar matters, this court has granted release of the vehicle on execution of the bond for the amount alone. However, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is prepared to submit 1/3rd of the amount namely Rs.40,500/- and he may be permitted to execute the bond for the balance amount with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the court below.
5. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that it is in tune with the Full Bench decision of this court in Shan's case (supra).
6. Heard both sides.
7. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle namely No.KL-11X-5636 was seized by the police in connection with the Crime No. 120/2014 of Melatur Police Station for involvement of commission of offence under Sections 20 & 23 of the above Act and it was seized on 19.02.2014. The petitioner filed the application before the concerned magistrate court namely Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna for interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure and as per Annexure 1 order, the learned magistrate granted interim custody and imposed conditions relying on the decisions reported in Sujith and Shan (cited Supra) that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.40,500/- being the 30% of the value in cash before that court and shall provide security of immovable property for Rs.94,500/- being the balance amount assessed or furnish bank guarantee for that amount apart from executing a bond for Rs.1,35,000/- with two solvent sureties. This two conditions are being challenged.
8. It is true that in Shan's case (cited Supra), Full Bench of this court has held that in cases involving vehicles in commission of the offence under the above said Act, interim custody of the vehicle can be granted by depositing 1/3rd of the value of the vehicle assessed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Public Works Department and furnishing either bank guarantee or immovable property security for the balance amount. But, thereafter, legislature has incorporated Section 23A as per Amendment Act 15 of 2013 which came into force with effect from 25.11.2012 which reads as follows:
“23A. Confiscation of sand, vehicles, etc., (1) where any property is seized under Section 23, the officer seizing such property shall seal all such properties for indicating that the same is seized and shall, whether prosecution proceedings have been initiated or not, within forty eight hours of such seizure make a report of such seizure before the Judicial Magistrate and before the Sub Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area from where the said properties are seized and the fact of such seizure shall be informed to the Station House Officer of the Police Station, having jurisdiction over the area. Where information regarding such seizure of propriety is received, the Police Officer concerned shall take steps under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974).”
9. It is true that this court in another case in Crl.M.C.No.2654/2014 modified the condition directing to execute the bond for the amount alone. But, what is mentioned in the act is sufficient security and not mere bond alone. So, considering the circumstances, this court feels that directing the petitioner to deposit 1/3rd of the amount namely 40,500/- before court and directing him to execute a bond for the balance amount with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned magistrate will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice. So, the conditions imposed by the court below namely condition Nos.1 to 3 are modified retaining the other conditions imposed by the court below as follows:
1. The petitioner shall deposit Rs.40,500/- being the 30% of the value of the vehicle assessed by the authorities.
2. The petitioner shall execute a bond for the balance amount of Rs.94,500/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna.
3. The petitioner need not execute further bond for Rs.1,35,000/- as directed by the court below as the security mentioned in Section 23A can be achieved by directing him to deposit 30% of the value of the vehicle and executing a bond for the balance amount with two solvent sureties.
4. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that he will not alienate or encumber the vehicle till the confiscation proceedings if any initiated are completed or disposal of the case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- II, Perinthalmanna whichever is later.
With the above modification of the conditions imposed, the petition is disposed of.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge