Gopi vs Deputy Ranger on 18 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2861 of 2008()


1. GOPI S/O VELU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DEPUTY RANGER, FOREST STATION,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.BABY

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :18/08/2008

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 Crl.M.C.No. 2861 of 2008
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008

                              O R D E R

The petitioner, against whom a prosecution under Section

27(1)(e) of the Kerala Forest Act has been initiated, has come to

this Court with a grievance that cognizance has been taken

without adverting to the bar of limitation in Chapter XXXVI

Cr.P.C.

2. Report of the learned Magistrate was called for and the

report shows that the petitioner faces indictment for the offence

under Section 27(1)(e) (iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act.

The alleged acts are offences punishable with imprisonment

which may extend to five years. As per the Amendment Act 2 of

1993 the offence is now punishable with effect from 12.11.1992

with imprisonment for a period of five years and in these

circumstances the provisions of Chapter XXXVI have no

application whatsoever, points out the learned Magistrate. The

learned Prosecutor in these circumstances prays that this

Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

Crl.M.C.No. 2861 of 2008
2

3. I have gone through the allegations raised in the complaint.

If believed, offences punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv)

are made out. Those offences are punishable with imprisonment for a

period which may extend to five years now. On the date of the

occurrence in this case also the offence was so punishable. In these

circumstances I agree with the learned Prosecutor that there is no merit

in the contention that the prosecution is barred by limitation. This

petition only deserves to be dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has other contentions on merits to be advanced in the course

of the trial. Needless to say, such contentions can be raised before the

learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage. Dismissal of this Crl.M.C.

will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all other

contentions on merit before the learned Magistrate in the course of the

trial.

5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm