IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 158 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CC.236/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR. CRIME NO.44/2009 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 AND 2 ------------------------------------------------------- 1. RATHEESH, S/O. PUSHPANGADAN, RESIDING AT 'RAJESH BHAVAN', PATTOOR MURI, NOORANAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SREEKUMAR, S/O.GANGADHARANPILLAI, RESIDING AT 'SREERAGAM HOUSE, MANDARAM MURI, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C No.158 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have final report in Crime No.44 of 2009 and further proceedings in C.C No.236 of 2009 quashed. 2. Petitioners are accused in a Crime No.44/2009 in offenses punishable under Section 20, 21 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The allegation is that there was illegal transportation of river sand in the vehicle driven by the first accused. The short contention of the petitioners is that cognizance of the offence can be done only on the basis of a compliant. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relies on “Moosa v Sub Inspector of Police” (2006(1) KLT 552). He therefore prays for appropriate reliefs. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that in case this petition is to be allowed, it shall not preclude the appropriate authorities from proceeding in accordance with law. Crl.M.C No.158 OF 2010 Page numbers 4. It is necessary to go deep into the matter in the light of the decision "Moosa v Sub Inspector of Police" (2006(1) KLT 552) and AIR 2009 SC (2763). It is settled that when a statute provides that cognizance can be taken only on a compliant that alone can be done. Cognizance on the basis of a report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is then not possible. Therefore, the petition is only to be allowed. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed and the further proceedings in C.C No. 236/2009 including the final report stand quashed. But it shall not preclude the respondents from taking such steps as available to them in accordance with law. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE