ORDER

The petitioner whose vehicle bearing registration No.KL 21L-7767 was seized by the Police alleging commission of offences under the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, has approached this Court challenging Annexure B order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Pathanamthitta. As per the impugned order the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by observing that no crime in respect of the said vehicle is registered and the matter is also not reported to the learned Magistrate. In such circumstances, it was observed that, as the vehicle is not brought before the jurisdiction of the court, an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The specific case put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. mandates that, the officer concerned, upon seizure of any property on the basis or in connection with an allegation of commission of crime, the same has to be reported to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area immediately. Therefore, it is pointed out that, the aforesaid statutory mandate has not been complied with. In such circumstances, the learned counsel is seeking for setting aside Annexure B order and also pray for a further direction to the nd rd

2 and 3 respondents to report the matter to the learned Magistrate concerned.

4. I find some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Statutory stipulations contained under Section 102 of the Act provide for such a reporting when a vehicle is seized in connection with the commission of an offence. In this case, it is evident from the records that, the vehicle was seized on 17.05.2022, alleging commission of an offence under Section 22 of Mines and Minerals nd (Development and Regulation) Act and therefore, the 2 respondent was under an obligation to report the matter to the learned Magistrate forthwith. Since the aforesaid exercise was not done, it is only proper that a direction in this regard be issued.

5. As regards the challenge against Annexure B order is concerned, the only impropriety is in relation to one observation made by the learned Magistrate to the effect that since no case has been registered, an application under Section 457 cannot be applied. However, it is to be clarified that, once the matter is reported to the learned Magistrate in compliance of the stipulations contained under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate can entertain an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. irrespective of the question whether a crime has been registered or not.

6. In such circumstances, Annexure B order to that extent is nd rd modified. It is further directed that, the 2 and 3 respondents who are having custody of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-21-L-7767, shall report the seizure of the vehicle forthwith to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Pathanamthitta and thereupon, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit appropriate application before the learned Magistrate for release of the vehicle which shall be considered in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

scs

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3657/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL 21-L-7767 Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

31/05/2022 OF THE JFCM-II, PATHANAMTHITTA IN CRL.M.P NO.1593/2022