AHAMMED KUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all these Crl. M. C. s and the Crl. R. P. are the owners of mini lorries which had been seized by the 2nd respondent, Tahsildar, for allegedly transporting river sand illegally without any authority and in contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 ("the Sand Act" for short ). In all these cases, the respective petitioners moved the Magistrate concerned under S. 457 Cr. P. C for interim custody of the vehicle. In Crl MC Nos. 543, 544 and 553 the Magistrate refused to entertain the applications refused to entertain the applications and returned those applications without even registering them. In Crl. M. C. No. 545/2008, even though the Magistrate registered the application as C. M. P. No. 343/2008, as per a separate order the application was returned holding that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the application in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in P. K. Alavi and Ors. Vs. District Collector and Ors. In Crl. R. P. No. 304/2008, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application which was registered as C. M. P. No. 238/2008 holding that there is no crime registered by the police and the seizure of the mini lorry was not reported to the Magistrate as there was no duty cast on the Tahsildar to report the seizure of the lorry before the Magistrate. The petitioners in all these petitions assail the action of the Magistrate either refusing to entertain the application for interim custody or in rejecting the application.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) ADVOCATE Shri. M. S. Breeze, the learned Public Prosecutor made the following submissions before me in support of the action of the Magistrate: