2009 (9) TMI 709 - HC - Indian Laws

Confiscation of vehicles - Cognizance of offences - Held that - In the present case the Bench of two learned Judges has, in terms, doubted the correctness of a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges. They have, therefore, referred the matter directly to a Bench of five Judges. In our view, judicial discipline and propriety demands that a Bench of two learned Judges should follow a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges. But if a Bench of two Judges is so very incorrect that in no earlier judgment of three learned Judges is so very incorrect that in no circumstances can it be followed, the proper course for it to adopt is to refer the matter before it to a Bench of three learned Judges setting out, as has been done here, the reasons why it could not agree with the earlier judgment. If, then, the Bench of three learned Judges also comes to the conclusion that the earlier judgment of a Bench of three learned Judges is incorrect, reference to a Bench of five learned Judges is justified. A plausible view on the power of the District Collector to order confiscation and lack of power on the Judicial Magistrates to entertain applications for interim custody confirmed.

Issues Involved:
1. Conflict between decisions of the Kerala High Court in Ahammed Kutty v. State of Kerala and Shoukathali v. Tahsildar.
2. Legal procedures for seizure and release of vehicles under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001.
3. Judicial discipline and adherence to precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conflict between Decisions:
The primary issue addressed in the judgment is the conflict between the decisions in Ahammed Kutty v. State of Kerala (2008) and Shoukathali v. Tahsildar (2009). The learned Single Judge noticed the apparent conflict and referred the matter to the Division Bench for resolution. The petitioner in the main case argued that his vehicle could only be confiscated or he should be called upon to pay the value of the vehicle in lieu of confiscation after a successful prosecution before the competent criminal court, relying on Ahammed Kutty. The respondents pointed to the conflicting decision in Shoukathali, which followed Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala and Moosakoya v. State of Kerala.

2. Legal Procedures for Seizure and Release of Vehicles:
The Division Bench examined the legal procedures under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, particularly Sections 24 and 25, and the related rules. The court noted that Section 24 makes the offences under the Act cognizable, but Section 25 specifies that no court can take cognizance of the offence except upon a written complaint by an authorized person. The court elaborated on the procedures for seizure and release of vehicles under the Act and the Rules, highlighting that the seizure should be effected under the provisions of the Sand Act and Rules, not under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. The detailed steps for seizure and release of vehicles were outlined, emphasizing that the District Collector has the authority to confiscate and sell the vehicle if the amount fixed by him is not paid.

3. Judicial Discipline and Adherence to Precedents:
The judgment extensively discussed the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to precedents. The court criticized the learned Single Judge in Ahammed Kutty for ignoring the decisions of the Division Bench in Abdul Samad and Moosakoya. The court emphasized that even when a decision of a Division Bench is stayed by the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judges are bound to follow it as a binding precedent. The court cited several authoritative pronouncements from the Supreme Court underscoring the necessity of maintaining judicial discipline and following precedents to ensure consistency and predictability in the law.

Conclusion:
The Division Bench concluded that the decision in Shoukathali, which aligns with Abdul Samad and Moosakoya, lays down the correct legal position. The court held that the learned Single Judges are bound to follow the decisions in Abdul Samad and Moosakoya. The Writ Petitions should be dealt with in accordance with the directions in Shoukathali, and the reference was answered accordingly. The judgment clarified that individual cases involving factual disputes should be dealt with separately on merits, and petitioners are free to move the learned Single Judge for appropriate interim relief. The Registry was directed to place the Writ Petitions before the appropriate Bench as per the roster.

← Previous Next →