SALU Vs. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Crl. M. C. filed under S. 482 Cr. P. C. seeking interim custody of a tanker lorry seized by the Assistant, Controller (Flying Squad), Department of Legal Metrology, Thrissur, for allegedly violating S. 37 (1) (vii) of the Standards of Weights and Measures was (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Enforcement Act" for short), comes up before us on a reference by one of us, (Padmanabhan Nair, J.)

(2.) THE aforesaid tanker lorry bearing registration No. KL-7f 6093 of which the petitioner herein (1st accused in S. T. No. 4940/03 on the file of JFCM, Chittur) is the registered owner, was on inspection by the respondent Assistant Controller on 1. 8. 2003, found to contain a secret chamber inside the 3rd compartment of the main tank. The said secret chamber having a capacity of 121. 108 liters was fitted with a special valve which would open to facilitate the secret chamber also to get filled while the main tank was filled with fuel. But while emptying the main tank during the course of supply to the distributors, the valve of the secret chamber will remain closed so that the fuel collected in the secret chamber will be retained there itself facilitating pilferage of fuel. The tanker lorry was inspected by the respondent by virtue of his power-under S. 30 and seized under a detailed mahazar in exercise of his power under S. 31 of the Enforcement Act. Subsequently the seized tanker lorry was produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittur and released to the respondent himself for safe custody and the respondent in turn entrusted the lorry to the Kozhinhampara? Police. The vehicle is thus stated to be in the custody of Kozhinhampara Police.

(3.) AS per C. M. P. 5778/2003 filed before the Trial Court, the petitioner sought interim custody of the' tanker lorry by invoking S. 451 Cr. P. C. By Annexure A -1 order dated 30. 8. 2003 the Trial Court rejected the said application holding inter alia that the vehicle with the secret chamber which is the main evidence in the case if released to the petitioner was likely to be misused and that the vehicle was liable to forfeiture under S. 32 of the Enforcement Act. Even though the petitioner challenged the said order before this 'court in Crl. M. C. 4520/03 filed under S. 482 Cr. P. C. , as per Annexure A II order dt. 17. 9. 2003 this Court after adverting to the objection by the respondent that there was very likelihood of destruction of the material piece of evidence and noticing the peculiar nature of the case, instead of releasing the vehicle to the petitioner, directing the Magistrate to dispose of the main case itself within two month of receipt of the order.