Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJISH, RESIDING AT 'KADAMBIL' versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAJISH, RESIDING AT 'KADAMBIL' v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 1983 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 10786 (20 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1983 of 2007()

1. RAJISH, RESIDING AT 'KADAMBIL',
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :20/06/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.1983 of 2007

Dated this the 20th day of June, 2007

O R D E R

Petitioner's grievance is confusing. Petitioner's vehicle has been seized by the police for alleged violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The seizure is as per Annexure- A3 mahzar prepared by the police official, ie. the Sub Inspector of Police of Thirur Police Station. The vehicle has not been produced before the learned Magistrate. It is submitted at the Bar that the seizure of the vehicle has not been reported to the learned Magistrate also. The vehicle continues to be detained in the police station. According to the petitioner, he cannot file an application under Section 451 or 457 Cr.P.C as the vehicle has not been produced nor has the seizure been reported. He cannot go before the Collector as the vehicle has not been produced before the Collector. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come before this Court with this Crl.M.C.

2. I find no merit in the grievance raised. If the vehicle has been seized in exercise of the powers under Section 102 Cr.P.C, the seizure has got to be reported to the Magistrate. Even assuming that there is laches on the part of the officer in reporting the seizure, that cannot certainly affect the right of the petitioner to claim release of Crl.M.C.No.1983 of 2007 2 the vehicle under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The petitioner can file an application before the learned Magistrate under Section 457 Cr.P.C, whereupon, the learned Magistrate must ascertain whether seizure has been effected and if the police reports that seizure has been effected, appropriate orders under Section 457 Cr.P.C will have to be passed.

3. In the alternative, if the vehicle is in the possession of the Collector and action has been initiated under Rule 27 of the Act, the petitioner has the alternative option to go before the District Collector and claim release of the vehicle in accordance with the rules.

4. In either case, the Crl.M.C before this Court does not appear to be maintainable. This Crl.M.C is, dismissed with the above observations.

5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.