IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
Arshad, Son Of Moidu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.MC No. 3921 of 2024
Decided on : 19-06-2024
Penal Provisions - Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 - Interpretation of 'transport of sand'
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of removing and transporting river sand without permit on a stationary vehicle. They argued that the penal provisions of the Sand Act would not apply as the vehicle was parked in a private property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had transported river sand without the required permission, and the sand found in the vehicle was not legally authorized. The court interpreted the term 'transport' in the Sand Act to include the act of carrying or conveying sand from one place to another, regardless of whether the vehicle was in motion or stationary.
Issues: Interpretation of the term 'transport of sand' under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the word 'transport' in the Sand Act encompasses the removal of sand from the river bed or kadavu to the vehicle and from the vehicle to any other place, and even a stationary vehicle loaded with river sand amounts to transport of sand.
Final Decision: The criminal miscellaneous case was dismissed, and the court upheld the application of the penal provisions of the Sand Act to the petitioners.
ORDER :
Would the penal provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, apply to river sand found on a stationary vehicle? Petitioners have raised the aforesaid question for consideration in this petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioners are the second and sixth accused in C.C.No.3318/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur. Prosecution alleges that the accused had, on 12.10.2023, removed and transported river sand without any document or permit on a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-08-AE-8245, which had not even paid the periodical tax and was operating without any valid insurance. The vehicle was found parked in the compound house of the third accused, situated next to the Thirunavaya pump house, adjacent to a Kadavu and thereby committed the offences under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, apart from Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Sand Act’), Sections 192A(1) and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.
3. Sri. P.M.Ziraj and Adv. Irfan Ziraj, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the prosecution allegations against the petitioners are baseless and are not sustainable in law. It was pointed out that the vehicle was allegedly seized while it was parked in the house of the third accused, and hence, the offences under the Sand Act will not be attracted. The learned counsel also contended that in order to attract the offence under Sections 20 and 23 of the Sand Act, the river sand must have been either extracted from the ‘Kadavu’ or must have been transported, and a stationary vehicle will not come within the purview of the term ‘transport of sand’. The learned counsel further submitted that the vehicle having been parked inside the private property of the third accused, none of the offences alleged are attracted.
4. Sri. Ashi M.C, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the first petitioner has indulged in repeated commission of similar offences under the Sand Act and already 12 cases have been registered against him for identical offences. It was further submitted that the term ‘transport’ includes even a vehicle loaded with river sand, and any interpretation that defeats the purpose of the statute ought not to be accepted. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the house of the third accused is situated next to a ‘kadavu’ and therefore, the contention raised on the basis of the vehicle seized from a private property has no significance.
5. I have considered the rival contentions.
6. Petitioners and the other accused are alleged to have transported river sand without any permit or pass, as required under law. The Sand Act mandates that the river sand shall be removed only after obtaining permission from the Competent Authority. Admittedly, the petitioners did not possess any such permission. Therefore, the river sand found in the lorry belonging to the second accused was not legally authorised.
7. Section 23 of the Sand Act states that whoever transports sand, without complying with the provisions of the Act shall be punished, and the vehicle used for the transportation be liable to be seized by the Police or Revenue Officials. The word transport cannot be interpreted to mean that the vehicle must be in motion. If such an interpretation is adopted, the whole purpose of the statute would be defeated.
8. Blacks Law Dictionary Eight Edition defines the word “transport” as “to carry or convey from one place to another”. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary Ninth Edition also defines the word ‘transport’ to mean ‘carry’. The words ‘transports sand’ would take in the removal of sand from the river bed or kadavu to the lorry and from the lorry to any other place. Even when a vehicle is loaded with river sand, it will amount to
AI
The term 'transport' in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 includes the act of carrying or conveying sand from one place to another, irrespective of whet....
Mandate sample testing of seized sand before proceeding under sand removal laws.
Vehicle seized for alleged illegal sand transport must undergo expert sample testing before final action.
The determination of the nature of sand transported is essential to establish if the offenses under the relevant Act apply.
Scooter seizure under Section 23 of the Kerala Act deemed inappropriate as per its provisions.
The applicability of various mining laws concerning the seizure of vehicles for transporting sea sand was clarified, with a focus on interim custody pending geological evaluations.
The imposition of penalties requires clear evidence of violations of the Act, which was lacking in this case.
The court affirmed that ongoing criminal proceedings necessitate seeking vehicle custody through the relevant magistrate rather than direct intervention in a writ.
The case underscores the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles in administrative proceedings, particularly the right to be heard before penalties are imposed.
In order to constitute the offence of theft, it is essential on the part of the prosecution to prove that the accused removed the sand out of the possession of the Government dishonestly and without ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.