S VADIVEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN excavator belonging to the petitioner was seized by the forest officials for allegedly being used for commission of offences under Sec.27(1)(e)(i) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, "the Act"). Forest officials registered Crime No.1 of 2011. The vehicle was produced before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur where petitioner moved Crl.M.P.No.541 of 2011 under Sec.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") for interim custody of the excavator. That application did not find favour with the learned Magistrate and it was dismissed. That order was challenged in this Court in Crl.M.C.No.899 of 2011. This court as per order dated March 30, 2011 allowed the criminal miscellaneous case and directed release of the excavator subject to certain conditions which include that petitioner shall produce bank guarantee for the value of excavator as may be got assessed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly learned Magistrate got the value of excavator assessed through the Mechanical Engineer, PWD. He reported value of the excavator as `.12,00,000/-. Petitioner claimed that he is unable to produce bank guarantee since for the said purpose, he has to deposit liquid cash in the bank. Thereon, petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2621 of 2011 before learned Magistrate to accept landed property with solvency certificate showing its value as `.14,40,040/-. That petition was rejected by the learned Magistrate in view of the direction this Court had issued in the order in Crl.M.C.No.899 of 2011. The dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.2621 of 2010 is under challenge.

(2.) LEARNED counsel has submitted that petitioner belongs to Tamil Nadu and that he is prepared to offer landed property situated in Tamil Nadu as security. It is submitted that all persons interested in the said property are prepared to file affidavits before learned Magistrate and that they have produced solvency certificates showing value of the land which is more than the value of excavator assessed by the Mechanical Engineer. LEARNED Public Prosecutor has submitted that petitioner belongs to another State and once the vehicle is released to him, it may not be possible to get it back for confiscation under Sec.61A of the Act. LEARNED Public Prosecutor submitted that the Court may consider the request of petitioner in case he is prepared to produce the original title deed in respect of the property, for which learned counsel for petitioner was not agreeable to.