RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A vehicle belonging to the revision petitioner was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Attingal under S. 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), when he found red earth being transported in the said vehicle in violation of S. 4(1A) of the Act. On seizure, the Sub Inspector, suo motu, registered a crime against the revision petitioner. However, seizure of the property was not reported to the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. When nothing proceeded further at the hands of the police, the revision petitioner moved the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal with C.M.P. No. 3608/2014 under S. 457 Cr.P.C., for getting custody of the vehicle seized by the police. The vehicle involved is a tipper lorry bearing No. KL-16-L-4739. Seizure was made by the police on 21.7.2014. The application filed by the revision petitioner under S. 457 Cr.P.C. was resisted by the prosecution on the contention that the fact of seizure has already been reported to the District Collector, and that the vehicle is liable for confiscation by the District Collector. The legal objection raised by the prosecution is that the court will have no role when the matter is reported to the District Collector for confiscation proceedings.

(2.) Finding that seizure of property has not been reported to the court, or that presently there is no complaint by the police and that the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram has already initiated proceedings, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed under S. 457 Cr.P.C., by order dated 11.8.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant has come out in revision.

(3.) On the preliminary legal objection raised by the other side regarding maintainability of revision, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be treated as an order under S. 451 Cr.P.C. because, there is no complainant or enquiry before the court, and that, some definite orders will have to be passed by the court for proper and legal custody of the property in view of the legal position settled by this Court in Joshy v. State, 1986 CrLJ 263In the said case, this Court held that when claim for custody of property is made in a situation where no inquiry or trial is pending before the court, the claim will have to be treated as one under S. 457 Cr.P.C., and orders passed under S. 457 Cr.P.C. in such a situation can be questioned in revision under S. 397 Cr.P.C.