C.T. Ravikumar, J.

1. Whether the Full Bench decision of this court in Shan Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2010 (3) KLT 413 creates embargo on exercise of power under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (The Code) in respect of a vehicle seized in connection with commission of offence punishable under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Bank and Regulation of removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short ‘The Act’) within the period of six weeks from the date of seizure? This question is posed for consideration in this revision petition that is directed against the order in C.M.P. No.2799 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra. He filed the said application under Section 457 of the Code to get interim custody of a tipper lorry bearing registration No. KL/10-P-2522 being its R.C. Owner. It was seized on 2-7-2012 alleging involvement in Crime No.342 of 2012 of Balussery Police Station registered under Section 23 of the Act. Though the seizure of the vehicle was reported to the Magistrate by the Sub Inspector, Balussery Police Station it was not produced before the court. It was in the said circumstances that C.M.P. 2799 of 2012 was filed. After considering the rival contentions the learned Magistrate dismissed the application.

2. Evidently, the said application has been dismissed by the learned Magistrate holding it as premature in the light of Shan’s Case (Supra). In Shan’s case the Full Bench deemed it appropriate to direct that the proceedings under Section 23 of the Act confiscating the vehicle should be concluded within six weeks from the date of seizure of the vehicle as far as possible. It appears that the learned Magistrate construed it is an absolute inhibition on invocation of the power under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. with the said period fixed. I am of the view that the said understanding can only be a misconception. It is evident from paragraph 13 of the decision in Shan’s case that the Full bench had not actually put restrain on powers exercisable or on exercise of power, by Magistrate under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The pointer to such a conclusion can be had from paragraph 13 itself which reads thus:

In paragraph 13 it is stated thus:

“We also deem it appropriate to direct that the proceedings under Section 23 of the above mentioned Act confiscating the vehicle shall be concluded within six weeks from the date of seizure of the vehicle as far as possible, in which case the need to consider the interim custody of the vehicle may not normally arise. But if for any reason the authorities under the Act are not able to conclude the proceedings within the period of six weeks mentioned above, the interim custody of the vehicle shall be given to the owner on the conditions specified earlier. It is also made clear that to avoid any controversy and the allegations of undue delay on the part of either party to the proceedings, the competent authority shall put the owner on notice within a period of three days of the date of seizure and the owner or any other person interested in the vehicle shall file his objections to the confiscation within a week thereafter.”

3. A scanning of the above extracted paragraph would undoubtedly show that the direction there under is for those who are competent to deal with confiscation of the vehicle under Section 23 to conclude the confiscation proceedings with the six weeks from the date of seizure of the vehicle, as far as possible. True that it was further observed that the need to consider the interim custody of the vehicle may not normally arise in case confiscation proceedings are concluded within six weeks from the date of seizure of the vehicle. The words ‘may not normally arise’ are sufficient to conclude that there was no total for closure of the remedy available under Section 457 Cr.P.C. and consequently, of the exercise of power thereunder. It itself would give the indication that in cases where such exercise of power under Section 457 i