STATE OF KERALA v. K.Krishnan (2000) 7 SCC 80
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
In the result, the impugned order is set aside and there will be a
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and there will be a direction to the Investigating Officer in Crime No.80/2024 of Ollur Police Station, to release the vehicle, bearing registration No.KL-39/G-2396 to the petitioner on the following conditions :- (i) Petitioner shall…
Judgment
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. ASHI M.C (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC 4021/2024 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ......…............................................. Crl.M.C.No.4021 of 2024 …................................................ Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2024 ORDER Petitioner’s vehicle, bearing registration No.KL-39/G2396 was allegedly found dumping sewage waste into a paddy field. The vehicle was seized on 21.01.2024 at 2.50 a.m.. Though petitioner filed an application for grant of interim custody, the same was dismissed by Annexure-2 order. Thus this petition challenging the aforesaid order.
I have heard Sri. Jithan Babu A., the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Ashi M.C., the learned Public Prosecutor.
A Division bench of this Court had in W.P.(C) No.7844/2023 directed that, as a preventive measure, vehicles dumping waste into public properties ought not to be released without getting permission from this Court.
In December 2023, the statute relating to the local authorities were amended to incorporate a provision for confiscation of vehicles involved in dumping waste into public properties. Despite all these CRL.MC 4021/2024 3 stringent conditions, there is still an increase in such nefarious activities and a time has come to incorporate stringent conditions, at least when vehicles seized, are directed to be handed over on interim custody.
In the decision in State of Karnataka v. K.Krishnan (2000) 7 SCC 80, the Supreme Court had observed that in serious offences committed under Forest and Wild Life Act, interim custody of vehicles can be granted by imposing conditions like furnishing of bank guarantee. In the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Supreme Court has observed the vehicles need not be kept in police custody or other offices, pending trial, as the same may reduce the value of the vehicle and that conditions can be incorporated while ordering release of the vehicle to the person best entitled to.
The petitioner is alleged to have committed a very serious crime of dumping sewage waste into a paddy field. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is every chance for the petitioner to repeat the crime, if the vehicle is released to her.
Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances and also bearing in CRL.MC 4021/2024 4 mind the decisions in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai’ case & K.Krishnan’s case (cited supra), I am of the view that though the petitioner has indulged in a very serious crime, which can even result in initiation of confiscation proceedings against the vehicle, no purpose would be achieved by retaining the vehicle in the custody of the Police until then. Appropriate conditions can certainly be imposed while directing release of the vehicle. Considering the nature of crime, stringent conditions ought to be imposed.
Operative part
In the result, the impugned order is set aside and there will be a direction to the Investigating Officer in Crime No.80/2024 of Ollur Police Station, to release the vehicle, bearing registration No.KL-39/G-2396 to the petitioner on the following conditions :-
(i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate and undertake to produce the vehicle before the Court as and when required.
(ii) Petitioner shall furnish a Bank Guarantee for Rs.2,00,000/- [Rupees Two lakhs only] before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.
(iii) Petitioner shall not transfer, sublet, lease or sell the vehicle to any person, until conclusion of the criminal case. CRL.MC 4021/2024 5 (iv) Petitioner shall participate in the trial as well as the confiscation proceedings, if any, initiated.
(v) Petitioner shall not commit similar offences in the future and if such offences are committed, the police will be free to repossess the vehicle, and encash the Bank Guarantee. The Crl.M.C.is allowed as above. sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/22/05/2024 CRL.MC 4021/2024 6 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4021/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 ANNEXURE 2 ANNEXURE 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.M.P. 937 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.III, THRISSUR DATED 23/04/2024. A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRLMC 10259/2023 DATED 08/12/2023. TRUE COPY
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the impugned order is set aside and there will be a
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.