The court held that conditions requiring the deposit of a substantial portion of a vehicle's value and the surrender of original vehicle documents as a prerequisite for interim custody are onerous and lack statutory support, warranting their removal to prevent the degradation of seized property.

CRL.MC NO. 4406 OF 2026

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.05.2026 IN CMP NO.155 OF 2026

OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Crl. M.C.No.4406 of 2026

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 9th day of June, 2026

O R D E R

The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-40-B-5925, which has been seized by the 2nd respondent alleging contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 read with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘Act and Rules’, in short).

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Angamaly (‘learned Magistrate’, in short). However, by condition No.(2) in Annexure-1 order, the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner to deposit 30% of the value of the vehicle, i.e., Rs.60,000/- and by condition No.(12), directed to keep the original registration certificate, insurance certificate and other original documents in the safe custody of the court till disposal of the proceedings. The above conditions are onerous and unjustifiable. The learned Magistrate has failed to consider the fact that there is no rival claimant for the vehicle. Moreover, as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], it is well settled that the interim custody of the vehicles have to be granted to the registered owners rather than leaving them exposed to the vagaries of nature. In view of condition Nos.(2) and (12) of the impugned order, it would be practically difficult for the petitioner to get the vehicle released and use the vehicle. The petitioner’s vehicle is lying in judicial custody for the last nearly two months. Hence, condition Nos.(2) and (12) may be deleted.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Indisputably, the petitioner’s vehicle was seized on 12.04.2026 on the allegation that it was used in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Although the learned Magistrate has ordered interim custody of the vehicle to be granted to the petitioner, he has imposed condition Nos.(2) and (12) directing the original documents to be kept in the safe custody of the court and also to deposit 30% of the value of the vehicle.

5. On a scrutiny of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, I do not find any provision that insists on the handing over of the original documents of the vehicle, and then only the vehicle can only be released on interim custody.

6. Taking into consideration the law laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai ‘s case (supra) and the fact that the vehicle is lying in judicial custody for nearly two months, I am satisfied that this is fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS and set aside conditions Nos.(2) and (12) in Annexure-1 order.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C. in the following manner:

(i) Condition Nos.(2) and (12) in Annexure-1 order are set aside.

(ii) The interim custody of the vehicle shall be granted to the petitioner subject to the condition that he complies with condition Nos. 1, 3 to 11, 13 and 14.

(iii) It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the competent authority proceeding with the confiscation proceedings, if any proposed.