Kerala High Court
A. Krishna vs State Of Kerala on 2 May, 2009
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/17TH KARTHIKA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 2739 of 2012 ()
--------------------------
CC.248/2010 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD
--------------
PETITIONERS/4TH ACCUSED:
-------------------------
A. KRISHNA
S/O.LATE SEETHARAM SARALAYA
RESIDING AT KAYARTHIMAR, ADOOR VILLAGE, URDOOR POST
KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR
SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
---------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
VK
Crl.MC.No. 2739 of 2012 ()
--------------------------
APPENDIX
--------
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE
---------------------
ANNEXURE-1. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 02.05.2009.
ANNEXURE-II. COPY OF THE ORDER DIRECTING TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS DATED
2.10.2009
ANNXURE-III. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 19.04.2010.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE : NIL
----------------------
/ TRUE COPY /
P.A. TO JUDGE
VK
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2739 of 2012
-----------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2012
O R D E R
Petitioner is one among the accused (A4) in a pending case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. In the above case, the accused persons are proceeded for offences punishable under Sections 2(e), 6 (6) and 7(1) of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005 {for short "the Act"} and Rules 3(1)(iii) and 23 of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1975 {for short {"the Rules"} on a report fled by the Forest Range Officer, Kasaragod. From the property of the petitioner, with other trees some teak wood trees were also cut, removed and transported, in violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules, is the basis for prosecuting the petitioner and other accused in the case. Crl.M.C.No.2739 of 2012
:: 2 ::
Petitioner has filed the above petition for quashing the proceedings against him exercising the inherent powers of this court, contending that such proceedings are an abuse of process of the court.
2. Petitioner is a Bank Manager, who has under an agreement permitted another person to cut and remove trees from his property and whatever permission required from authorities for cutting, removal and transportation was required to be obtained by the purchaser of such trees, is the case canvassed for quashing the proceedings producing a copy of the agreement. Plea raised by the petitioner, at best, can only be treated as a defence, which this court, at this stage, cannot consider to determine and decide the merit of the case of the complainant to prosecute him.
3. However, after hearing the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, and looking into the Crl.M.C.No.2739 of 2012 :: 3 ::
materials produced as well, I find, no offence against the petitioner on the allegations raised would lie as imputed under the Rules. Petitioner, then, has to face prosecution only for the violation made in transporting of teak wood trees cut and removed from his property without obtaining a permit from the Forest Department. That is covered by Rule 6(6) of the Rules and the penalty for which is provided under Section 7(1) of the Act. Penalty contemplates punishment extending to six months or with fine, which may extend to Rs.25,000/-. Concededly, teak wood trees were cut and removed from the property belonging to the petitioner situate in a non-forest area. No notification has been issued with respect to that area restraining the cutting of trees. When that be so, violation of the Act was only in respect of transporting of such trees cut and removed without obtaining a permit, I find, it is open to the petitioner to move the competent authority Crl.M.C.No.2739 of 2012 :: 4 ::
under the Forest Act, to seek composition of the offence. Section 68 of the Act empowers a Forest Officer, not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests, to pass appropriate orders with respect to forest offences committed by any person other than under Section 62 of 65 of the Act. The offence imputed under Rule 6(6) of the aforesaid Rules, no doubt, is within the competency of the empowered officer for making orders of composition provided sustainable grounds thereof are made out. So much so, as indicated above, the petitioner can approach the forest officer for composition of the offences.
There will be a direction to the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Kasaragod, to consider any application for composition moved by the petitioner provided such application is presented before him within a period of three weeks from today. If any application is filed, the Assistant Conservator of Forests shall pass Crl.M.C.No.2739 of 2012 :: 5 ::
appropriate orders thereof within a further period of two months. If any composition is permitted by the Assistant Conservator of Forests, pursuant to the direction as above issued by this court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take note of the same and pass appropriate orders. To enable the petitioner to seek composition of the offences, as indicated above, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod is directed to keep in abeyance further proceedings in the case for a period of three months.
Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/-
//true copy//