IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3863 of 2010 ---------------------------------- [CRIME NO.387/09 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, CC.NO.202/2009 OF THE J.F.M.C, KOTHAMANGALAM , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- KORAKUNJU, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.KURIAKOSE, `POIKKATTIL HOUSE', CHELAD, VETTAMPARA KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SMT.K.R.RIJA. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3863 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 20th September, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the accused in C.C.202/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kothamangalam filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken for the offence under Section 20 read with Section 27 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on Annexure-A final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Kothamangalam contending that cognizance could have been taken only on a complaint filed by an officer authorised under the Act as provided under Section 25 Crmc 3863/10 2 of the Act. It is contended that in view of the decisions of this Court in Abdul Azeez v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT 394) and Ismail & others v. State of Kerala & others (2010 (3) KHC 677 (DB)), cognizance can only be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-A final report shows that Judicial First Class Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 20 read with Section 27 of the Act not on a complaint filed by an officer authorised under the Act, but on a final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. As held by this Court in Abdul Azeez's case and Ismail's case (supra) cognizance taken on a final report submitted by Crmc 3863/10 3 the Sub Inspector of Police is illegal and it can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. Cognizance taken in C.C.202/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kothamangalam is quashed. It is made clear that quashing of the cognizance taken will not prevent the officer authorised under the Act to file a complaint or the learned Magistrate to take cognizance on such complaint. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.