P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KL.36.2527, which was taken into custody by the first respondent/Sub Inspector as per Ext.P1 seizure Mahazar dated 29.9.2014 alleging illegal transportation of river sand. The case of the petitioner is that no such offence has been committed by the petitioner under any circumstance and that the material carried in the vehicle was only ordinary sand.

2. The petitioner approached the third respondent/RDO herein seeking for interim custody of the vehicle in the light of the law declared by this Court. But it was hesitated to be acted upon, stating that after amendment of the statute, particularly with reference to Section 23A, the third respondent was not having any authority/jurisdiction to grant interim custody, the same being vested with the JFCM having jurisdiction over the area.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the idea and understanding of the third respondent/RDO is quite wrong and unsustainable, as the amendment has only brought about an enabling provision, whereby the JFCM is also vested with the authority to grant interim custody, simultaneously making it obligatory for the concerned officer, who effected the seizure to have it reported to the Sub Divisional Magistrate and also to the JFCM.

4. Now, the question to be considered is with regard to the further course of action in connection with the confiscation/prosecution proceedings and also with regard to the granting of interim custody of the vehicle. The competent authority to finalise the confiscation proceedings, as per the statute, is none other than the 3rd respondent/RDO and there cannot be any dispute in this regard. With regard to granting of interim custody, the matter had come up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court and as per the decision reported in Shan C.T. vs. State of Kerala, 2010 (3) KHC 333 : 2010 (3) KLT 413, the Bench observed that, interim custody of the vehicle could be released subject to satisfaction of 30% of the value of the vehicle and on furnishing security for the balance amount, giving further direction to have the confiscation proceedings finalised, within the time as stipulated therein. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said verdict read as follows:-

"12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that interim custody of the vehicle can be granted on condition that the owner of the vehicle deposits 30% of the value of the vehicle as determined by the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act in cash and a further condition that the owner of the vehicle should provide either a bank guarantee or immovable property security for the balance of the value of the vehicle. The amount so deposited and the security furnished would follow the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings.

13. We also deem it appropriate to direct that the proceedings under S.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."

5. Later, an issue came up for consideration before this Court, as to whether prosecution proceedings are mandatorily to be pursued in cases involving offences under the Kerala Protection of River