THIMOTHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are moved by a person claiming to be the registered owner of a lorry, bearing Registration No. KRR 2313. According to him, the lorry was transferred in his name on 3-5-1983 under a duplicate registration book, the original having been lost. He would say that the lorry was operating inside the State of Kerala land that it has no permit to operate outside the State. On a complaint by one Anjaneyelu, a resident of Pidugurala, Guntur District in Andhra Pradesh, the lorry was seized by the Sub Inspector, Pidugurala with the assistance of the Trichur police, in the belief that it was involved in the commission of an offence.

(2.) Anjaneyelu's complaint to the police appears to be that one George had received a consignment of rice from him to be transported to Kerala and that it did not reach its destination. George was believed to be the driver of the lorry seized. The seizure was reported to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur and it was produced before him. The petitioner prayed for release of the lorry. The Magistrate declined the release on the grounds, that S.451 and 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had no application and that S.457 of the Code could not be invoked, because according to him, he had no jurisdiction to deal under that section. In his view, such an application could be moved only before the Magistrate, who would have jurisdiction to hold inquiry or trial.

(3.) Counsel for petitioner submits that the understanding of the section by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is erroneous, and that there is no inquiry or trial pending before any other magistrate. The counsel would say that the magistrate of competent jurisdiction, is the magistrate to whom the seizure is reported. To support his contention, counsel referred to a decision of this court in P. D. Joseph v. State of Kerala ( 1977 KLT 869 ). This court held that only two conditions are necessary to attract jurisdiction under S.457 Cr. PC. The seizure should be reported to the magistrate, whose jurisdiction is invoked and the property should not have been produced before a court for purposes of inquiry or trial.