IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 520 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.1209/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANOOP KUMAR, S/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, THEKKEKALLUPURATH HOUSE, MULAMBUZHA, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. RAJASEKHARA KURUP, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA KURUP, KORANDIPALLIL HOUSE, THOTTAKKONAM, MUDIYOORKONAM, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.520 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 15th February 2010 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.C.1209/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's court, Adoor, taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 20 and 21 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulations of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on a final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that cognizance taken is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25 of the Act and so Crmc 520/10 2 it is unsustainable and therefore, it is to be quashed. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex court in Moosa Koya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 538). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Section 25 of the Act, mandates that no court shall take cognizance of the offence under the Act except on a complaint filed by the authorised officer as provided therein. As the cognizance was taken on final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of police and not on a complaint, as held by the Division Bench of this court in Moosa Koya's case (supra) and approved by the Apex court in Jeevankumar Raut v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2009 SC 2763) and Crmc 520/10 3 followed in Crl.M.C.Nos.3606/2009 and 3715/2009, the cognizance taken can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. C.C.1209/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's court, Adoor is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.