IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3333 of 2010()
1. JAYAN, S/O. RAJAN, AGED 29 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O KUNJUMUHAMMED,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SAKIR.K.H.
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :31/08/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
——————————-
Crl.M.C.Nos.3333 & 3340 of 2010
——————————-
COMMON ORDER
These petitions are filed by the respective
accused in C.C.No.725/2008 and C.C.No.418/2007 on
the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s
Court, Adoor to quash the cognizance taken on a
final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police,
Pandalam for the offences under Sections 20 and 21
of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation
of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and Rule 48(K) read
with Rule 58 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession
Rules contending that learned Magistrate should not
have taken cognizance on a final report submitted
by the Sub Inspector of Police, when cognizance
could be taken only on a report submitted by the
officer authorised under the Act. Petitioner is
relying on the decision of this Court in Abdul
Azeez v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT 394). The
decision in Abdul Azeez’z case (supra) is upheld by
CRMC 3333&3340/10 2
the Division Bench of this Court in Ismayil v.
State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 706).
2. In view of the decision in Abdul Azeez’s
case (supra), as upheld by the Division Bench in
Ismayil’s case (supra), the cognizance taken can
only be quashed.
Petitions are allowed. C.C.Nos.725/2008 and
418/2007 are quashed. But, it is made clear that
quashing of the cognizance taken will not affect
the right of the authorised officer to file a
complaint or the Magistrate to take cognizance of
the offence on such a complaint.
31st August, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv