IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1899 of 2006() ------------------------- OR.4/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): 3RD ACCUSED: --------------------------- D.N.PRASANNAKUMAR, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LIC OF INDIA, AND RESIDING AT NANDANAM, VADAKUMTHALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KASARAGODE. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER(FORESTS) SRI.P.M.PAULOSE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No. 1899 of 2006 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 ORDER This petition is filed to quash charge-sheet filed against petitioner. 2. Petitioner is third accused as per Annexure-4 charge-sheet. The alleged offences are under Rule 3(1) (iii) of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules 1975 ('the Rules' for short) read with Sections 39 and 40 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). 3. According to prosecution, on 24.2.2004 while PW1, who is the Sub Inspector of Police and party were on patrol duty, a Maruthi car No. KL-5/G-6600 was found coming to Kasaragode side from Mangalapuram and though signal was given, the car was not stopped. The car was chased and stopped. On a search conducted, 80 Kg. of sandal wood logs and chips were found inside the car without any supporting documents or pass required as per law. Therefore, first and second accused, who were found in the Crl.M.C.No. 1899 of 2006 2 car were arrested and car was also seized. A case was registered against first and second accused. On investigation it was found that petitioner, who is the third accused, is the RC owner of the vehicle which was used for transportation of the contraband articles and hence charge- sheet was laid against petitioner also for transportation of timber in violation of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Rules. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India and he has absolutely no involvement in the offence. According to him, his car was stolen as early as on 8.12.2002 about two years prior to the incident by some unknown person and the matter was reported to police. A crime was registered for offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. On investigation over a period of more than one year, a refer report was filed by police on 30.5.2003, as evidenced by Anneuxre-2 stating that offenders could not be detected. The crime was referred as undetected. Crl.M.C.No. 1899 of 2006 3 5. The incident in this case occurred only on 24.2.2004 after about more than one year of the theft. The petitioner was not in possession of the vehicle at the time of occurrence in this case and only because petitioner is the owner of the vehicle he was implicated in the offence. It was also submitted that a reading of Annexure-4 will show that accused was implicated in this case only because he is the R.C. owner of the vehicle in which the timber was transported. Therefore, charge may be quashed, it is submitted. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner being the owner of the vehicle is involved in the case, he must be having a role in transportation of the timber. He would have conspired with the other accused to transport the timber. Hence, he is liable for the offence alleged against him. 7. On hearing both sides and on going through the relevant provisions, I find that there is a prohibition under the Rules to transport timber, unless it is accompanied by Crl.M.C.No. 1899 of 2006 4 pass and unless timber is stamped by Government stamp etc. The charge-sheet does not reveal an allegation that petitioner was transporting the timber. As per the charge sheet, the persons who had transported the timber are accused nos.1 and 3. It is also not alleged anywhere in the charge that petitioner had any role in transporting the timber. Not even a case of conspiracy is alleged against petitioner to transport the timber in his vehicle. 8. Rules 3 (i)(iii) only provides that no person shall transport timber etc. But the owner of a vehicle, which is used for transportation is not liable under the said provision. Only the person who transports the timber would be liable for violation of the Rules and the owner of the vehicle which is used for transportation cannot be made liable for the offence, especially since there is absolutely no whisper in the prosecution records to show that he has any role in transportation. 9. It is also relevant to note that two years prior to the date of occurrence, petitioner has lodged a complaint Crl.M.C.No. 1899 of 2006 5 for theft of the vehicle, which is involved in transportation and a report is also filed stating that offenders are undetected. The prosecution has no case that petitioner had made any false information regarding theft and no proceedings are also initiated against him. The refer report discloses that the offenders could not be traced out. In such circumstances, petitioner shall not be proceeded against on the basis of Annexure A4. 10. In the result, the following order is passed. 1) Annexure-4 in so far as it relates to petitioner is hereby quashed. 2) Petitioner shall not be proceeded against on the basis of Annexure-4. Petition is allowed. K.Hema, Judge cms