IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2565 of 2011() ------------------------------- CC.109/2011 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------- 1. CHOLAYIL NAZAR, S/O.HUSSAIN, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, ATHAVANAD ROAD, PATTARNADAKKAVU, ANANTHAVOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THENPARAMBIL RAMLA, W/O.NAZAR, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, ATHAVANAD ROAD, PATTARNADAKKAVU, ANANTHAVOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT(S): STATE/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. 2. K.MURALEEDHARAN, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676101. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRMC. NO. 2565/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A:COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NILAMBUR ON 21/05/2011 AND NUMBERED THE SAME AS C.C. NO.109/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2565 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.109/2011 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri. A complaint was filed against them by the 2nd respondent - RDO, Tirur alleging offence punishable under Sec.23 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (herein after referred to as 'Act'). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint was filed on 21.5.2011. The constitution/ establishment of Data Bank as contemplated under Sec.5(4) of the Act was published only on 10.6.2011, long after the filing of the complaint. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Local Monitoring Committee was constituted prior to the filing of the complaint but the date of notification is only subsequent to the filing of the Crl.M.C. No.2565 of 2011 -: 2 :- complaint. As such it cannot be said that as on the date of the alleged commission of offence or the date of the complaint, there was compliance of Sec.5(4) of the Act. Since the proceedings under the Act can be initiated only after the publication of the Data Bank as contemplated under Sec.5(4) of the Act, the prosecution against petitioners cannot be sustained. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Further proceeding in C.C.No.109/2011 of CJM, Manjeri is quashed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt