IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1076 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.12/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: --------------- 1. CHITHARANJAN, S/O.MATTUPURATH KUNHIKANDAN, THEKKETHODIYIL HOUSE, NALLOOR DESOM, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. PRADEEP, S/O.MATTUPURATH KUNHIKANDAN, THEKKETHODIYIL HOUSE,NALLOOR DESOM, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT(S)STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. P.ABDU RAHIMAN, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1076 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.12 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri facing trial for offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 23 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act (for short, “the Act”). Case arose on a complaint preferred by respondent No.2, the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is alleged that on 04.11.2009 petitioners in violation of Section 3 of the Act have converted/reclaimed their paddy land and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 23 of the Act. The complaint was preferred on 20.01.2010. Petitioners contend that since there is no publication of any notification concerning the data bank, no prosecution would lie under Section 23 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Firose v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2011 (1) KLT 868). I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. It is revealed that the notification under Section Section 5(4)(i) of the Act was published only on 30.11.2010. This Court in the decision referred supra has held that prosecution for violation of Section 3 of the Act is permissible only when a notified land is converted/reclaimed in violation of Section 3 of the Act. In the present case allegation is that Crl.MC No.1076/2011 2 conversion/reclamation was on 04.11.2009 whereas notification was published only on 30.11.2010. It follows that at the relevant time there was no notification in respect of the land in question. If that be so, in the light of the decision referred supra prosecution against petitioners cannot stand and is liable to be quashed. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-A, complaint, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioners in C.C.No.12 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks