Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
JAMSHEER CHERIYAKADAMBETH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 5284 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For the Respondents: SRI. M.C. ASHI, SR.PP.
Conditions for vehicle release modified due to conflicting evidence on the nature of transported material, emphasizing flexibility of legal precedents according to case facts.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules - Issue regarding vehicle seized for alleged illegal mining of river sand - Petitioner contended the vehicle was transporting sea sand with valid permits - Court considered whether the seizure conditions were justified per prior decisions; Full Bench decision established protocol for river sand - Conditions for bond modified in light of ongoing investigation regarding material being transported. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 7)
(B) Appeal - Court must adhere to previous ruling unless it contradicts current interpretations or factual accuracy - Current case reveals conflicting submissions regarding the nature of the mined material and corresponding legal obligations. (Paras 2, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged seizure conditions of a vehicle alleged to be transporting illegal river sand. The petitioner argued the sand was sea sand, supported by prior court direction and actions by regulatory authorities.
Findings of Court:
The conditions imposed by the lower court are modified based on uncertainties surrounding the material type, allowing for a bond instead.
Issues: Whether the conditions placed by the lower court were justified given the nature of the sand being transported, and the prior court's determination about the vehicle's use.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that while previous rulings offer guidance, they must adapt based on factual complexities present in individual cases; bond conditions adjusted due to ambiguity around the material's classification.
Result: Modified release conditions approved.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seizure of vehicle for illegally transporting sand. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on custody conditions related to sand type. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court observation on factual discrepancies in submissions. (Para 5) |
| 4. modification of conditions based on legal precedent. (Para 6) |
| 5. final decision of condition modification. (Para 7) |
ORDER The petitioner’s Mini Lorry bearing registration No. KL-
13-P-5098 was seized by the 2nd respondent on 22.01.2025, alleging that the vehicle was transporting illegally mined river sand. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court seeking release of the vehicle on the premise that, the vehicle was transporting sea sand and that too, on the strength of a valid transit pass. The writ petition was disposed of by Annexure C judgment, based on the submission of the Government Pleader that, going by the seizure mahazar, the transportation was of sea sand and not river sand and the issue therefore falls under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court directed the petitioner to approach the Geologist for necessary relief under the Act and Rules. The petitioner thereafter moved the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking interim custody of the vehicle. Therein, Annexure E order was passed directing release, but subject to conditions.
2. This Crl.M.C. is filed aggrieved by conditions 1 and 2 requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.31,500/-, being 30%
of the value of the vehicle assessed and to produce Bank Guarantee for the remaining Rs.73,500/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, insofar as the alleged transportation was of sea sand, the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate is unjustified. It is submitted that the condition requiring deposit of 30% in cash and the balance in Bank Guarantee is imposed on the basis of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shan v. State of Kerala [ 2010 (3) KLT 413 ], which was rendered in the context of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act , and therefore, inapplicable to the petitioner’s case.
4. Reference is made to Annexure D order to point out that as directed by this Court, the petitioner had approached the Geologist and the said authority has proceeded under the provisions of the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules , 2015, and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act , which itself is indicative of the fact that the vehicle was not transporting river sand. It is hence contended that conditions 1 and 2 in Annexure E order is liable to be deleted.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the prayer, by pointing out that the submission made by the Government Pleader and recorded in Annexure C judgment is an obvious mistake. It is pointed out that, in the seizure mahazar, it is clearly recorded that the vehicle was transporting river sand. It is submitted that the sample of the sand has been forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, but the report of scientific analysis is yet to be received.
6. It is true that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shan (supra) was rendered after considering all relevant aspects, including the environmental impact due to illegal mining of river sand. Being a Full Bench decision, this Court is bound to follow the same in similar cases. For that, the transportation must be of river sand. In the case at hand, the petitioner was directed to approach the Geologist, who, in turn, decided to proceed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act , whereas the Full Bench decision was rendered in the context of violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act .
7. It is also pertinent to note that the report of analysis is yet to be received from the Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, despite the contention of the Public Prosecutor that the Government Pleader’s subm
