IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18412 of 2008(P)
1. JAMES VARKEY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :10/07/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
W.P(C). No.18412 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Against the petitioner, proceedings have been initiated
under the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. Offence 19 of 2004
has been registered. The allegation against him is that a dead
`Mulakunari tree’ was cut and removed by him from a land in his
possession. Though the offence was registered as early as in
2004 and the sword of this prosecution has been hanging over the
head of the petitioner, no action has thereupon been taken. It is,
in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come before this
Court with the short contention that no action can legally be taken
against him under the provisions of the Kerala Preservation of
Trees Act. It is contended that `Mulakunari tree’ is not a tree
which falls within the definition of the expression `tree’ in Section
2 (e) of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. Section 2(e) of the
Preservation of Trees Act reads as follows:
“Section 2 e: `tree’ means any of the following
species of trees, namely : Sandalwood (Santalum
album), Teak (Tectona grandis), Rosewood (Dalbergia
latifolia), Irul (Xylia Xylocarpa), Thempavu (Terminalia
tomantosa), Kampakam (Hopea parviflora),
Chempakam (Michelia chempaca), Chadachi (grewia
tiliaefolia), Chandana vempu (Cedrela toona), Chenni
(Tetrameles nudiflora).”
W.P(C). No.18412 of 2008 2
2. A number of opportunities have been given to the
learned Government Pleader to respond to the prayer/contention
of the petitioner. Even as on date, the file has not been placed
before the court and there is no attempt to assert that any
offence has been committed by the petitioner for which legal
action can be taken against him.
3. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that termination
of this long pending proceedings has got to be brought about and
in the total absence of any attempt to justify such proceedings
against the petitioner, I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit
case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can and ought to
be invoked in favour of the petitioner.
4. In the result :
i) This Writ Petition is allowed;
ii) All further proceedings in Offence No.19 of 2004
registered on 15.07.04 as per Ext.P2 against the petitioner is
hereby quashed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-