Kerala High Court
Anil vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2013
Author: C.T.Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/16TH PHALGUNA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 1072 of 2013 ()
--------------------------
CRIME NO. 105/2013 OF VENMANI POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------
ANIL, S/O.PODIYAN, AGED 35 YEARS, CHIRAYIL PARAMBIL
KODUKULANJI KARODU, VENMON VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR, VENMONY POLICE STATION,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 688 001.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1072 of 2013
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A1: THE PHOTO COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.105/2013 OF VENMANI
POLICE STATION DATED 19.02.2013.
ANNEXURE-A2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.02.2013.
ANNEXURE-A3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.837/2013 DATED
08.02.2013.
// TRUE COPY //
TKS
P.S. TO JUDGE
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
----------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1072 of 2013
----------------------------
Dated 7th March, 2013
ORDER
The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.105 of 2013 of Venmani Police Station. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 4(1A) and 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals ( Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 (for short `the Act'). A tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-05-X-4296 was seized alleging that it involved in the commission of the said offences. The petitioner submitted an application under Section 23A of the Act requesting to allow him to compound the offences and also to release the tipper lorry. It is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of the said provision the officer who initiated prosecution against the petitioner ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner for compounding the offences. It is in the said circumstances that this petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a direction to the second respondent to consider Annexure-A2 application and to afford him an opportunity to compound the aforesaid offences in terms of the provisions under Section 23 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is possible and permissible to compound the offences alleged against the petitioner in the light of the decisions of this Court in Sumesh v. State of Kerala Crl.M.C.No.1072/2013 2 (2012(3) KLT 524) and Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police (2013(1) KLT 600).
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor also endorsed the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in this case is no more res integra and that it is squarely covered by the decisions in Sumesh's case (supra) and Digil's case (supra). In the said circumstances, this petition is disposed of as hereunder:-
If Annexure-A2 application is received and pending before the second respondent, he shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. In case the second respondent finds that it is allowable in terms of the provisions under law, necessary compounding fee shall be collected in accordance with the provisions under the Act and the Rules while allowing the application. A decision shall be taken on Annexure-A2, if it is already received, expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of Crl.M.C.No.1072/2013 3 this order. Needless to say that if ultimately the compounding petition is allowed the vehicle involved in the crime shall be released to its registered owner on production of relevant and necessary documents. It is made clear that in case the application is not allowed, the second respondent would be at liberty to proceed with in accordance with law.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS