Interim custody of a seized vehicle can be granted despite serious allegations if judicial oversight and stringent conditions are imposed to safeguard public interest.

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).

2. Petitioner is the registered owner of Mahindra Tanker Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-18/G-3863. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed challenging Annexure-B order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of the Code for interim custody of the vehicle.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed the offences punishable under Sections 269 and 278 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 120(e) of Kerala Police Act. The vehicle was taken into custody when it was alleged to be used repeatedly for the purpose of dumping hazardous waste in public place.

5. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed under Section 451 of the Code mainly for the reason that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious and the learned Magistrate also observed that considering the spirit of the order of this Court dated 25.05.2023 in W.P.(C). No.7844/2023, the petitioner is not entitled interim custody. I think there is some force in the above finding of the learned Magistrate.

6. But, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle is the livelihood of the petitioner and he is ready to comply any conditions imposed by this Court. It is also submitted that the vehicle is now parked in an open place and if it is continued to be there, it will be damaged. The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

7. After hearing both sides, I think the vehicle can be released after imposing stringent conditions. InSunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 2003 SC 638 ), the Apex Court held that powers under Section 451 should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously after imposing appropriate conditions. I am of the considered opinion that the Magistrate can be directed to release the vehicle, after imposing the conditions mentioned inSunderbhai Ambalal Desai’s case (supra).

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Annexure-B order is set aside.

2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi is directed to release the vehicle bearing registration No.No.KL-18/G-3863, after imposing the conditions mentioned in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 2003 SC 638 ).

3. The petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle without the permission of the Court.

4. The petitioner shall not commit similar offence in future and if such offence is committed, the Police Authorities are free to approach the lower court and the lower court can pass appropriate orders to repossess the vehicle even though this order is passed by this Court.