IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 928 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.885/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, NORTH PARAVUR .................... (CRIME NO.472 OF 2008 OF VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER-ACCUSED: --------------------------------- SATHAR, S/O.EESAH, AGED 21 YEARS, AYYALY HOUSE, MANJALYKARA, KARUMALOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM (DIST) BY ADV. MR.ANIL K.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 928 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.885/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, N.Paravoor taken cognizance for the offence under Section 20 of Kerala River Bank Protection and Regulation and Removal of Sand and Minerals Act,2001 on Annexure-A final report. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that learned Magistrate is not authorised to take cognizance on Annexure-A final report. Under Section 25 of the Act, cognizance can only be taken on a complaint filed by an officer authorised under that Act. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-A final report is submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Varapuzha. It is not a complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure-A does not show that the Sub Inspector is filed as an authorised officer under the Act or he is an authorised officer. In such circumstances, as held by this Court in Sherif and Others v. Sub Inspector of Crl.M.C. No.928/2010 2 Police, Konni, (2010 (1) KLD 109) following the Division Bench in Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 538) and the decision of the Apex Court in Jeevankumar Raut & Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2009 SC 763) cognizance taken on Annexure-A final report can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. C.C. No.885/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, N.Paravoor is quashed. It is made clear that quashing of the cognizance taken will not prevent the officer authorised under the Act to file a complaint or the Magistrate to take cognizance on the complaint. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, (JUDGE ) vps Crl.M.C. No.928/2010 3