KOSHY, J. :- A learned single Judge of this Court referred this matter to the Division Bench as in the earlier judgment of this Court in Alavi P.K. v. District Collector and others (ILR 2007 (4) Kerala 221 : 2007 (4) KHC 142) (same as Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 473)) while holding that Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable when vehicles transporting sand illegally is seized under Section 102, Cr. P. C. it was not brought to the notice of this Court that under Section 24 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (in short 'the Sand Act') all offences are cognizable. If the offences are cognizable, the police cannot refuse to register a crime when they get information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. Consequently, police is bound to report the seizure of the vehicle to the Magistrate having jurisdiction as provided under Section 102, Cr. P. C. At paragraph 6 of the judgment it was held as follows :

"6. Based on the decision of this Court in Rahim v. State of Kerala (2002 (3) KLT 340) it is argued that as soon as the vehicle is seized, report should be filed to the Court under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are afraid that such an interpretation is not possible because what is to be done with the seized vehicle is very clearly mentioned under Rules 27 and 28. It is true that for imposition of penalty like imprisonment and imposition of fine, only Court can take action on a complaint duly filed and it is the power of the Court to impose imprisonment or fine under Section 20 of the Act. For that seizure of the vehicle is not necessary. Hence, vehicles which are transporting sand illegally can be seized under Section 23 of the Act and not under Section 102 of Cr. P. C. The power to seize is given to revenue officials and Police Officers and when vehicles are seized under Section 23 of the Act, the procedure to be followed is also prescribed in the statutory rules framed under the Act itself. It is a self contained Act. Further, under which circumstances police officers should seize the vehicles is specifically mentioned in Section 102, Cr. P. C. and conditions are different with regard to seizure of vehicle involved in illegal sand mining which is made illegal by the provisions of the Act and, therefore, Section 102, Cr. P. C. is not applicable when the vehicle is seized as per the provisions of the Act. Hence, the decision in Rahim v. State of Kerala, (2002 (3) KTL 340) is not correctly decided. As soon as the seizure is effected, further procedures to be taken are very specifically mentioned in Rules 27 and 28. The above power is in addition to the power of the Court in imposing penalty under Section 20 and such offence can be taken cognizance by the Court only if authorised officer as mentioned in Section 25 files a complaint and those two provisions are clearly independent as legislature thought if fit, if necessary to confiscate the vehicle if the vehicle is involved in illegal sand mining. Even though District Collector has got power to confiscate the vehicle, rules provide that on payment of the amount as fixed under Rule 27(3), he is bound to release the vehicle...................."

In paragraph 5 of the order of reference, the learned single Judge observed as follows :

"5. It is true that the Division Bench in Alavi's case has taken such a view. But then, it appears that the attention of the Division Bench was not brought to one aspect of the matter. Under Section 23 of the Act whoever transports sand without complying with the provisions of the Act is declared to be liable to be punished and the vehicle used for the transportation is also liable for seizure by the police or revenue officials. The liability for punishment can arise under Section 20 of the Act as per which whoever contravenes any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder is liable to be punished with imprisonment for