MOOSAKOYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are stated to be owners of goods vehicles which were admittedly seized by the Police for the alleged violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001 and the Rules thereunder. The allegation against the petitioners appears to be that they had transported sand in violation of the provisions contained under the Act. However, the petitioners have raised a definite contention that the transportation was on the strength of passes issued by the local statutory authority.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the vehicles are now lying in the custody of the Police, though report under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioners had filed application before the learned Magistrate for interim custody of their vehicles under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected the plea through a common order which is impugned in these petitions.

(3.) The learned Magistrate dismissed the applications since according to him, it would not be proper to interfere with the jurisdiction of the District Collector who has reportedly initiated "confiscation proceedings" as contemplated under the Act. The learned Magistrate took the view that the two conditions laid down under Section 457 of the Code were not satisfied. In this connection the learned Magistrate placed reliance on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Thimothy v. State of Kerala (1987 (1) KLT 82). The learned Magistrate went on to hold that since the dictum laid down in the above decision was not "over ruled or distinguished", in the later decision in Rahim v. State of Kerala (2002 (3) KLT 340) the jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code cannot be invoked. I am afraid, the learned Magistrate has proceeded at a palpably wrong tangent.