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 [ENTITY], J. [CASE NUMBER] ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kothamangalam, taken cognizance for the offence under [SECTION] of [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] of [ACT] 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] of [ACT], was submitted before the 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 [SECTION] of [ACT], 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) 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 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 [SECTION] of [ACT] 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 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 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. [CASE NUMBER] on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kothamangalam is quashed.
2nd December, 2010 ([ENTITY], Judge) tkv