IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 1233 of 2007()
1. C.USMAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.SOOPY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :05/06/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1233 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner is an accused, who faces allegations under
Section 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act. Bark of certain trees were
seized by the Mananthavady police and the same were handed over to
the forest officials. The petitioner applied for release of the bark so
seized. The learned Magistrate directed release of the bark to the
petitioner subject to certain conditions. Revision petition was filed
before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge, by
the impugned order, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and
directed that the property be sold in public auction. It was stipulated
that the petitioner can also take part in the auction. The sale
proceeds was directed to be deposited before the learned Magistrate.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case was filed on 16/4/2007.
When it came up for hearing on 17/4/2007, the learned Public
Prosecutor was directed to take instructions and the matter was
posted to 24/4/2007. On that day, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case
was admitted and interim stay was granted by this court.
3. By the time the order of interim stay was communicated
on 24/4/2007, the bark had already been sold in public auction.
Crl.M.C.No.1233/07 2
Proceeds have been deposited before the learned Magistrate also,
submits the learned Public Prosecutor. In these circumstances, the
learned Public Prosecutor submits that this Criminal Miscellaneous
Case has now become unnecessary and infructuous.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
has been deliberate violation of the order of this court. The Public
Prosecutor in charge knew of the proceedings on 17/4/2007 and he
was directed to take instructions and be ready on 24/4/2007. On
24/4/2007, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case was admitted and interim
stay was granted. The official concerned must have known that
instructions were given in the matter and should not have proceeded
to dispose of the bark in public auction on 24/4/2007 itself without
waiting for the orders of this court. The conduct of the official
concerned amounts to contempt, it is urged.
5. I do not find merit in this contention. On 17/4/2007
obviously the learned Judge who admitted the Criminal Miscellaneous
Case had not granted any interim order nor was the Criminal
Miscellaneous Case admitted. By the time, the Criminal
Miscellaneous Case was admitted and interim stay granted, the
auction had already taken place. There was no impediment against
the conduct of the auction on 24/4/2007 though, of course, it would
Crl.M.C.No.1233/07 3
appear the forest officials could have waited for the outcome of the
proceedings on 24/4/2007. Be that as it may, I am not persuaded to
agree that any action in contempt can be taken against the officials
concerned. That prayer cannot be accepted.
6. Coming to the main relief claimed in the petition, I agree
with the learned Public Prosecutor that the proceedings have become
infructuous and unnecessary. The bark in question have already been
disposed of in terms of the order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge.
7. Nothing survives for consideration. This Criminal
Miscellaneous Case is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
Crl.M.C.No.1233/07 4
Crl.M.C.No.1233/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007