The court affirmed that a Magistrate can impose financial security conditions when significant damages are confirmed from negligent acts.

ORDER

The petitioner herein is the registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-70-6485. The aforesaid vehicle was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pooyappally police station in connection with Crime No.740/2023 registered under Section 279 of the IPC. The petitioner filed an application for interim custody which was allowed subject to conditions. The petitioner is aggrieved by condition No.2 of the order, by which he was ordered to deposit a cash security of Rs. 82,890/- before court.

2. Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate insofar as it directs the petitioner to deposit money by way of cash security cannot be sustained under law. According to the learned counsel, Section 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 speaks about negligently breaking or damaging any materials connected with the supply of electricity, and the Statute only imposes a punishment of fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/-. According to the learned counsel, the learned Magistrate was not justified in imposing such an onerous condition.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions. He would refer to Annexures A4 as well as A5, and it is highlighted that the accused drove the tipper lorry in a rash and negligent manner and hit on three electric posts of the KSEB bearing Nos.AE 253, AE 256 and AE 254, causing extensive damages. It is further submitted that damages were caused to the

11KV line.

4. After careful consideration of the submissions advanced by both sides, I find that significant damages were caused to three electric posts and the 11 KV line due to the reckless and negligent manner in which the vehicle was driven. The mahazar indicates that the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) has assessed the damages at a total of Rs.82,890/-. The petitioner is not disputing the extent of loss sustained by the KSEB.

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate was well justified in ordering the petitioner to provide cash security for the release of the vehicle.

This Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE NS APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4725/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES :

Annexure A1 THE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF VEHICLE NO.KL-70-6485 DATED 15.3.2014 Annexure A2 THE COPY OF INSURANCE POLICY DATED 7.3.2023 ISSUED BY HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

TO THE TIPPER OF THE PETITIONER VALID FROM

10.3.2023 TO 9.3.2024 Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND MAHAZAR IN CRIME NO.

740/2023 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION DATED

18.5.2023 Annexure A4 THE COPY OF REPORT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE

2ND RESPONDENT INCORPORATING OFFENCE U/S 139 OF ELECTRICITY ACT BEFORE THE JFMC-II, KOTTARAKKARA Annexure A5 THE COPY OF LIST OF PROPERTY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JFMC-II, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 18.5.2023 Annexure A6 THE COPY OF REPORT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.740/2023 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION Annexure A7 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.5.2023 IN CMP NO.1750/2023 IN CRIME NO.740/2023 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF JFMC-II, KOTTARAKKARA