Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 79 (KER)

Suhail P. S. v. State Of Kerala

2018-01-19

ASHOK MENON

body2018
Order Ashok Menon, J. The petitioner assails the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta, in CMP No. 6538/2017 in Crime No. 506/2017, an application filed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that he is the owner of the vehicle. On his application to get the vehicle released, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing release of the vehicle with the following conditions:- “(a) The petitioner shall bond for sureties like sum; Rs. 4,00,000/- with two solvent execute each. (b) The petitioner shall produce Banksecuring the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- for Guaranteethe to production ofbefore vehicle before the authorised the officer or this Court as and when required/directed; (c) The petitioner shall produce the original of the Registration Certificate and connected papers for perusal; (d) The petitioner shall produce the photographs and CD in respect of the vehicle before getting release of the same; (e) The others till the disposal of the case and the petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle in of favour confiscation proceedings; (f) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before this Court as well as before the authorised officer as and when required.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition under (b) wherein he has been asked to produce Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- for securing production of the vehicle before the authorised officer or before the Court as and when required/directed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence of smuggling sandal wood logs in his Innova car as alleged, may not be sustainable because the prosecution has no established case that the logs were cut from a forest land thereby attracting the provisions under which the crime is registered. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The investigation is on and the prosecution has still time to establish the fact regarding from where the logs were cut. But, in view of the specific provision under Section 61(A) of the Kerala Forest Act, which entitles confiscation of the vehicle involved in offence transporting sandal wood logs allegedly cut from the forest area, the Magistrate cannot be found fault with for imposing the condition of insisting of production of Bank Guarantee. But, in view of the specific provision under Section 61(A) of the Kerala Forest Act, which entitles confiscation of the vehicle involved in offence transporting sandal wood logs allegedly cut from the forest area, the Magistrate cannot be found fault with for imposing the condition of insisting of production of Bank Guarantee. More over, there is a decision of this Court in WP (C) No. 22648/2017 dated 4.10.2017 relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor, and I do not find any reason to vary from that decision. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC 5. In view of the above, this Crl.MC will stand dismissed. No costs.