IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 418 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CC.2439 OF 2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA ........................................ Crime No.511 of 2008 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION .......................................... PETITIONERS :- ACCUSED Nos. 1 TO 3 -------------------- 1. LIJU, S/O.JOSE, AGED 30, KARUMATHY HOUSE, NEDUVANOORKARA, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. MAHENDRAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 48, MANAPPURAM HOUSE, AVANAMKODUKARA, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. 3. SHIJU, S/O.JOSE, AGED 33, KARUMATHY HOUSE, NEDUVANOORKARA, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.ANIL K.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT :- STATE -------------------- STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.418 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 17th February 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.C.2439/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva taken cognizance for the offence under Section 4(1) (A) read with Section 2(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, on Annexure-A final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Changamanad. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that cognizance of the offence under Protection of River Bank and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act could be taken only on a complaint filed by the authorised officer as provided under Crmc 418/10 2 Section 25 of the Act and cognizance of an offence under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act can also be taken cognizance only on a complaint filed by the authorised officer as provided under Section 22 of the Act and as the cognizance was taken on a final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure the cognizance taken is bad and hence it is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on a final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Cognizance taken is bad as it is in violation of Section 25 of Protection of River Bank and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act and Section 22 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. Question has been settled by Crmc 418/10 3 this court in Sherif and others v. Sub Inspector of Police, Konni and another (2010 (1) KLD 109) following the Division Bench decision in Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 538), as approved by the Apex court in Jeevankumar Raut v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2009 SC 2763). Hence cognizance taken can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. C.C.2439/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva is quashed. It is made clear that quashing of the cognizance taken, will not affect the powers of the learned Magistrate to take cognizance, on a complaint filed as provided under Section 25 of Protection of River Bank and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act and Section 22 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, Crmc 418/10 4 JUDGE. uj.