RAHIM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lorry bearing Reg. No. K.L.E. 8905 which belongs to the petitioner was seized by the police on 27.6.2002 and it is now being kept in Karunagappally Police Station. No report regarding the seizure of the above vehicle was sent to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area from where the vehicle was seized by the police. Petitioner approached the Magistrate by filing a petition under S.451 and 457 Cr.P.C. requesting to give interim custody of the vehicle to him. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application on observing that no crime is pending in the court of the Magistrate in respect of seizure of the vehicle and that the matter is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam. In the order the learned Magistrate says that what the Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted before court was that the Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappally who seized the vehicle on 27.6.2002 gave a report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kollam that sand was being loaded and transported in the above vehicle without any valid permit. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karunagappally took the vehicle in custody and produced the same before the Revenue Divisional Officer who is the executive Magistrate. The lorry as stated earlier is kept in the premises of Karunagappally Police Station.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, immediately on seizing the vehicle, the police officer who seized the vehicle would have sent a report to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karunagappally informing the Magistrate about the seizure of the vehicle. The submission is that S.102 Cr.P.C. gives powers to a police officer to seize a vehicle in connection with the commission of a crime and when seizure is made in exercise of the powers under that section of the Cr.P.C. necessarily the officer who makes the seizure has to send a report to the Magistrate, S.102(1) Cr.P.C. says that any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. Sub clause 2 of S.102 says that the police officer who seizes the property if he is subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to the officer in charge of the police station. Sub clause 3 of S.102 says that every police officer acting under sub-s. 1 shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the court as to the disposal of the same.

(3.) The dismissal of the application by the learned Magistrate for the reason that report regarding the seizure of the vehicle was not given to court and no crime is seen to have been registered is challenged by saying that the conduct of the officer who seized the vehicle in not reporting the seizure to the Magistrate is in violation of what is said in S.102 Cr.P.C. As a result of not making any report regarding the seizure of the vehicle, the Magistrate, Karunagappally had to say in the order that there was no report regarding seizure and hence he could not invoke the powers under S.451 or 457 Cr.P.C. for giving interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. If, as a matter of fact, the police officer who seized the vehicle had reported to the court that the vehicle had been seized by him, the Magistrate would have proceeded to take a decision on the question of giving interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner on merits.