FAISAL Vs. ASSISTANT SUB COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KL36.2527, which was taken into custody by the first respondent/Sub Inspector as per Ext. P1 Seizure Mahazar dated 29.09.2014 alleging illegal transportation of river sand. The case of the petitioner is that no such offence has been committed by the petitioner under any circumstance and that the material carried in the vehicle was only ordinary sand. The petitioner approached the third respondent/R.D.O. herein seeking for interim custody of the vehicle in the light of the law declared by this Court. But it was hesitated to be acted upon, stating that after amendment of the statute, particularly with reference to S. 23A, the third respondent was not having any authority/jurisdiction to grant interim custody; the same being vested with the JFCM having jurisdiction over the area.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the idea and understanding of the third respondent/R.D.O. is quite wrong and unsustainable, as the amendment has only brought about an enabling provision, whereby the J.F.C.M. is also vested with the authority to grant interim custody, simultaneously making it obligatory for the concerned officer, who effected the seizure to have it reported to the Sub Divisional Magistrate and also to the J.F.C.M.

(3.) Now, the question to be considered is with regard to the further course of action in connection with the confiscation/prosecution proceedings and also with regard to the granting of interim custody of the vehicle. The competent authority to finalise the confiscation proceedings, as per the statute, is none other than the 3rd respondent/R.D.O. and there cannot be any dispute in this regard. With regard to granting of interim custody, the matter had come up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court and as per the decision reported in Shan C.J. v. State of Kerala, 2010 3 KerLT 413, the Bench observed that, interim custody of the vehicle could be released subject to satisfaction of 30%. of the value of the vehicle and on furnishing security for the balance amount, giving further direction to have the confiscation proceedings finalised, within the time as stipulated therein. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said verdict read as follows: