Kerala High Court
T.V.Damodaran vs State Of Kerala on 2 August, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
MONDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/24TH PHALGUNA, 1937
Crl.MC.No. 3014 of 2015 ()
---------------------------
MC 92/2015 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARGOD.
..........
PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
-----------------------------------------------------
T.V.DAMODARAN, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O.AMBADIKUNHI, PALAKKAT HOUSE,
CHIVAPURAM, NEELESWARAM,
KASARAGOD - 671 314.
BY SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
ADVS.SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH
SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
--------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
KASARAGOD AT KANHANGADN - 671 315.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
Crl.MC.No. 3014 of 2015 ()
------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
--------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE-A1: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE-A2: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 2.8.2012.
ANNEXURE-A3: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY.
ANNEXURE-A4: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 1.10.2012.
ANNEXURE-A5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.10.2012.
ANNEXURE-A6: TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE OF
PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANIZATION.
ANNEXURE-A7: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.7881/2015
DATED 12.3.2015.
ANNEXURE-A8: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.7882/2015
DATED 12.3.2015.
ANNEXURE-A9: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C. 92/2015 OF THE SUB
DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD
DATED 31.3.2015.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL
--------------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
================
Crl.M.C. No. 3014 of 2015
=======================
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2016
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
2. The proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the petitioner through Annexure- A9 order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasaragod through M.C.No.92/2015.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he became accused in two crimes namely, (1) Crime No.68/2014 of the Nileshwar Police Station, for the offences under Sections 286 IPC and Section 9B(1) of the Explosives Act, and (2) Crime No.115/2015 of the said Police Station under Sections 286 IPC and Section 9B(1) of the Explosives Act.
4. According to the petitioner, the said two crimes Crl.M.C. No. 3014 of 2015 -: 2 :- were registered when he was keeping explosives, based on his licence, during the period when his applications seeking renewal of licence was pending.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that both the said crimes were registered as he was found keeping explosives negligently in his property, in violation of the terms of licence. When the offence under Section 9B(1) of the Explosives Act is alleged, it is evident that the same is with regard to the violation of licence conditions and not with regard to the want of licence.
6. Whatever it is, it has to be thought of whether there is satisfaction on the part of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in passing Annexure-A9 order? When the petitioner happened to be an accused in two crimes relating to violation of licence conditions under the Explosives Act, it could not be said that there was proper satisfaction on the part of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in passing Annexure-A9 order that the continuance of the petitioner in the locality would Crl.M.C. No. 3014 of 2015 -: 3 :- result in breach of the peace in the locality or that he was likely to commit any offence against public tranquility.
7. In a case wherein there is violation of licence conditions, his licence could have been cancelled or prosecution could have been taken against him. At the same time, it cannot be said that by the mere fact that he became an accused in two crimes wherein violation of licence conditions under the Explosives Act are alleged, there was satisfaction that his continuance in the locality would result in the breach of peace or that he was likely to commit offences against public tranquility. Matters being so, Annexure-9 is per se illegal and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-9 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE stu