IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4081 of 2010()
1. K.R.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. K.V.SUNNY, AGED 46 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. ASST.WILD LIFE WARDEN,
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :02/12/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4081 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.436/2010
on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s
Court, Kothamangalam, taken cognizance for the
offence under Section 27(1)(b) of Kerala Forest Act
on Annexure-A1 final report submitted by Assistant
Wild Life Warden, Thattekkad Birds Sanctuary.
Prosecution case is that petitioners, who were
watchmen of Thattekkad Birds Sanctuary, set fire to
the shed constructed for their residence on the
night of 9.1.2002 and thereby caused a loss of
Rs.2,500/- and thereby committed the offence. This
petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings
contending that the alleged incident was on
9.1.2002 and Annexure-A2 forest offence seizure
report (preliminary), as provided under Section 36
of Kerala Forest Act, was submitted before the
CRMC 4081/10 2
court on 10.1.2002 and final report was submitted
only on 31.7.2010 and petitioners were not in any
way connected with the destruction of the shed by
setting fire and the case was foisted as they were
the office bearers of trade union. Though
petitioners are entitled to a speedy justice, which
is guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of
India, the proceedings has been protracted
unnecessarily and in such circumstances, it is to
be quashed.
2. Assistant Wild Life Warden filed a statement
disclosing that investigation revealed that
petitioners set fire to the temporary shed
deliberately to avoid their stay inside the forest
during night hours and investigation was conducted
in a free and fair manner. It is also stated that
while investigation is almost over first petitioner
submitted Annexure-R2(A) statement dated 5.9.2005
expressing willingness to compound the offence and
second petitioner also filed Annexure-R2(B)
CRMC 4081/10 3
statement dated 10.9.2005 for the same purpose and
considering their request, by Annexure-R2(C)
proceedings dated 15.9.2006, Chief Wild Life
Warden, Idukki permitted to compound the offence,
but petitioners did not remit the amount and as
there was an order to compound the offence, further
action was not taken. It is contended that the
complaint received by Conservator of Forests,
Inspection and Evaluation Wing, Kottayam against
the first petitioner was taken on file and an
enquiry was ordered by the Conservator of Forests
directing Assistant Wild Life warden to conduct an
enquiry and in that enquiry, some witnesses
disclosed that petitioners were involved in other
offences and then only the files were traced out
and on verification, it was found that petitioners,
though permitted to compound the offence, did not
compound the offence and hence charge was laid.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners, relying on the decisions of the Apex
CRMC 4081/10 4
Court in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra
((2008) 16 SCC 117) and Vakil Prasad Singh v. State
of Bihar ((2009) 3 SCC 355), argued that right to
speedy trial in criminal prosecutions is an
inalienable right under Article 21 of Constitution
of India and petitioners were denied that right and
on the materials, it is clear that petitioners were
being prosecuted with mala fides and in such
circumstances, to secure justice, proceedings is to
be quashed.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
investigation revealed that petitioners set fire to
the temporary shed, where they are expected to stay
during night, as they were not willing to stay
inside the forest during night and for that purpose
the shed was destroyed by setting fire and the
delay in filing the final report was on account of
the willingness expressed by the petitioners under
Annexure-R2(A) and Annexure-R2(B) to compound the
offence and by Annexure-R2(C), their prayer was
CRMC 4081/10 5
allowed and they were permitted to compound the
offence and it was found out only later that they
did not remit the amount and in such circumstances,
the case cannot be quashed.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the
case diary. On a perusal of the case diary, it is
absolutely clear that there is no material,
whatsoever, to point out the guilt of the
petitioners. The case diary only shows that on
getting a report that temporary shed was found
destroyed by fire, Assistant Wild Life Warden was
directed to conduct an enquiry to find out who set
fire to the shed. After four months, a report is
seen filed to the effect that enquiry revealed that
petitioners set fire to the shed. It also does not
disclose from what source the said opinion was
gathered or how the said conclusion was arrived at.
It is further seen from the records that thereafter
also no statement was recorded from any witness.
Annexure-A9 report submitted by the Forest Range
CRMC 4081/10 6
Officer, Flying Squad Range, Perumbavoor shows that
a vigilance enquiry was conducted and based on the
vigilance enquiry, a detailed investigation was
directed to be undertaken. The case diary shows
that no such enquiry or investigation was
conducted. Based on all these materials available
in the case diary, even if petitioners are to be
tried, they cannot be convicted by any court as
there is no material against them. In such
circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice
to continue the prosecution, as ultimately, there
is no likelihood of a conviction at all.
Petition is allowed. C.C.No.436/2010 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court,
Kothamangalam is quashed.
2nd December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv