Kerala High Court: In petition under Section of the (‘CrPC’) filed by the accused, raising the question that whether the penal provisions of the (‘Sand Act’) would apply to river sand found on a stationary vehicle, Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. dismissed the petition while holding that a vehicle loaded with river sand, whether stationary or in motion, would come under the purview of the Sand Act, and would attract the penal provisions under it.
Background
The accused were alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections read with Section of the , Sections , of the , Section of the and Section 15 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. It has been alleged that the accused removed and transported river sand without any documentation or permit on the vehicle used, and the same was also operating without any valid insurance. The vehicle was found parked next to the house of Accused 3 near Thirunavaya pump house, where the offence was alleged to have been committed.
The accused contended that vehicle was allegedly seized while it was parked outside the private property of accused 3, and in order to attract the offences under Sections and of the , the river sand must have been either extracted from the ‘Kadavu’ or must have been transported. A stationary vehicle would not come within the purview of the term ‘transport of sand’.Therefore the case against them was baseless.
The State submitted that the accused persons were repeat offenders under the Sand Act and 12 cases had been registered against him for similar offences. It was further contended by the State that term ‘transport’ would include even a vehicle loaded with river sand, and any interpretation that defeats the purpose of the statute was not acceptable. Further, the fact that the residence of accused 3 was next to a ‘kadavu’ negated the contention that the vehicle was seized from a private property.
Decision and Analysis
The Court noted that the mandate under the Sand Act, 2001 is that river sand could only be removed after obtaining requisite permission from the competent authority, and since the accused had no such permission, the sand found in the vehicle was not legally acquired.
The Court referred to Section of the that states that transport of sand without complying with the provisions of the Act was a punishable offence and that the vehicle would be liable to be seized by the police and revenue officials. The Court further observed that word ‘transport’ could not be interpreted to mean that the vehicle must be in motion, as such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of the statute.
The Court referred to the definition of ‘transport’ in the Black’s Law Dictionary , and said that the words ‘transports sand’ would include removal of sand from the riverbed or ‘Kadavu’ to the lorry and from the lorry to any other place. The Court stated that even when a vehicle is loaded with river sand, it would amount to transport of sand, irrespective of whether the vehicle was in motion or not.
The Court held that the argument that a vehicle in stationary mode would not come within the purview of the Sand Act was not legally tenable.
Considering that the accused was a repeat offender of similar offences, the Court dismissed the petition.
[Arshad v. State of Kerala, Crl. MC No. 3921 of 2024, decided on 19-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the petitioner: P.M. Ziraj, Irfan Ziraj, Advocates
Advocate for the State: Ashi M.C, Public Prosecutor
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .