Kerala High Court
Shuhaib K.A vs State Of Kerala
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/9TH PHALGUNA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 940 of 2017 ()
--------------------------
CRIME NO. 50/2017 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION , KASARGOD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
----------------------
SHUHAIB K.A,
S/O.MOHAMMED ALI K., 9/118 KUBANOOR HOUSE, ICHILANGOD,
MANGALPADY, KASARGODE
BY ADVS.SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM
SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR
SRI.ALBERT V.JOHN
SMT.ROSHNI MANUEL
SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
2. THE GEOLOGIST,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT,PIN-671121
BY T.R.RANJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 940 of 2017 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.50/2017
ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 368 DATED 19.1.17
ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE ADVANCE TAX UTILIZATION RECEIPT DATED
20.1.2017
ANNEXURE A3 (A)COPY OF THE ADVANCE TAX UTILIZATION RECEIPT DATED
20.1.2017
ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE
ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY COMMERCIAL TAXES
DEPARTMENT
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 14.12.2009
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NUMBER
58289/P3/2010/REVENUE DATED 11.11.2010
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.25313/2015
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
R.AV
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.940 of 2017
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2017
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.50/2017 of Kasaragod Police Station for offence punishable under sections 379 of IPC and section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. It was alleged by the prosecution that on 21.1.2017 the vehicle No.KA-19-AA-4930, was found transporting river sand. On interception, the accused ran away from the spot. The vehicle was seized and crime was registered. The petitioner contends that the sand was purchased vide Annexure-A2 invoice validly and it was being transported legally evidenced by Annexures-A3 to A4. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the vehicle had crossed the check post on 20.1.2017 at 12.10 hours. The interception was on 21.1.2017 at 14.30 hours. In the light of the above an offence under section 379 IPC read with sand Act will not survive. Hence the Crl.M.C.No.940 of 2017 2 prosecution for the above offence is not sustainable. In the light of above, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. However, this will not preclude the second respondent from initiating appropriate proceedings under the MMDR Act. In the event of such a proceedings being initiated at the earliest, the petitioner herein will be entitled to seek compounding of the offence in accordance with law and on such composition, the vehicle with sand shall be released to the petitioner without considerable delay.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge