IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4303 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CC.160/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER/FIRST ACCUSED -------------------------------------------- GOAPALAKRISHNAN @ GOPALJI, KIZHAKKEKARA PUTHENVEEDU, PALLIMON.P.O., KANNANALLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM), SRI.MATHEW SUNNY, SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR. RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 572. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010, ALONG WITH CRMC NO.4304 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ---------------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4303 & 4304 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 26th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.1064/2009 and C.C.160/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Paravoor. By Annexure-I order respectively, finding that the cognizance could not have taken for the offences under Sections 20 and 21 of Kerala Protection of River Bank and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 on a final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Magistrate stopped the proceedings under Section 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure on the applications filed to discharge him. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that learned Magistrate Crmc 4303 & 4304/10 2 should have discharged the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Petitioners had earlier filed Crl.M.C.4268/2010 and 4272/2010 on identical facts against identical orders in two other cases. By order dated 21/10/2010, those petitions were disposed making it clear that the impugned orders were passed under Section 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure and as provided under the Section petitioner was released as the cases are being tried as summons case and not warrant case and such release shall have the effect of discharge as provided under Section 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. In the light of that order, Crmc 4303 & 4304/10 3 petitions are disposed making it clear that the orders passed under Section 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure is proper making it clear that the petitioner is released in both cases under Section 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure and it shall have the effect of discharge. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.