STATE OF KERALA v. K.Krishnan (2000) 7 SCC 80

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ATHOLY POLICE STATION, KANNUR, PIN – 670 010. SMT.NIMA JACOB, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC 5569/2024 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ......…............................................. Crl.M.C.No.5569 of 2024 …................................................ Dated this the 30th day of July, 2024 ORDER Petitioner’s vehicle, bearing registration No.KL-16/G-9049, was allegedly found dumping sewage waste into a public property. The offence is alleged to have been detected and the vehicle seized on 07.05.2024. Though petitioner filed an application for grant of interim custody, the same was dismissed by Annexure-A1 order. Thus this petition challenging the aforesaid order.

I have heard Sri. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt. Nima Jacob, 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 stringent CRL.MC 5569/2024 3 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 public property. The Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the final report has already been filed and that there is every chance that the petitioner may repeat the commission of similar offences, if the vehicle is released to him.

Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances and also bearing in mind the decisions in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai’ case & K.Krishnan’s case CRL.MC 5569/2024 4 (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 seriousness of the offence and the health hazard on the public, stringent conditions ought to be imposed.