IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1025 of 2010()
1. RATHEESH,POLAKKAL HOUSE, KAVIYOOR.
... Petitioner
2. JAGAN JOSEY,KANNANKARA KANDATHIL,
3. ANCHU, MALAYAPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :29/03/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
---------------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.1025 & 1026 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated 29th March 2010
O R D E R
Petitioners in Crl.M.C.1025/2010
are the accused in C.C.644/2006 and
petitioners in Crl.M.C.1026/2010 is the
accused in C.C.13/2008 on the file of
Judicial First Class Magistrate’s court,
Thiruvalla. C.C.644/2006 was taken
cognizance for the offence under Sections
20 and 21 of Kerala Protection of River
Banks and Regulation of Removal of sand
Act, 2001 and Rule 58 (1) of Kerala Minor
Mineral Concession Rules on Annexure-A
final report submitted by Sub Inspector of
police, Keezhvaypur police station.
C.C.13/2008 was taken cognizance by the
learned Magistrate on Annexure-A final
Crmc 1025 & 1026/10
2
report submitted by Additional Sub Inspector
of Police, Thiruvalla police station for the
offence under Sections 20 and 21 of Kerala
Protection of River Banks and Regulation of
Removal of sand Act, 2001. Petitions are
filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the cognizance taken
contending that in view of Section 25 of the
Act cognizance could have been taken only
on a complaint filed by an officer authorized
by the Act and not on a final report
submitted by the police and therefore,
cognizance taken are to be quashed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor
were heard.
3. Cognizance in both the cases were
taken on the final reports submitted under
Crmc 1025 & 1026/10
3
Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure
by the police officer after investigation.
Section 25 of the Act mandates that no court
shall take cognizance of an offence except
on a complaint filed by an officer
authorized under the Act. As held by this
court in Sherif and others v. Sub Inspector
of Police, Konni and another (2010 (1) KLD
109) following the Division Bench decision in
Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT
538), approved by the Apex court in
Jeevankumar Raut v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (AIR 2009 SC 2763), cognizance
could not have been taken by the learned
Magistrate except on a complaint filed by an
officer authorized under the Act. Hence
cognizance taken is bad and can only be
quashed.
Crmc 1025 & 1026/10
4
Petitions are allowed. Cognizance
taken by Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Thiruvalla in C.C.644/2006 and C.C.13/2008
are quashed. But it is made clear that
quashing of the cognizance taken, will not be
a bar for the officer authorized under the
Act to lodge a complaint or the learned
Magistrate to take cognizance of the
offences, as provided under Section 25 of
Act.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.