IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1256 of 2010 -------------------------------------- CC.1077/2009 of JFCM, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ANOOP, S/O.LALAN, VELLATTUTHARA HOUSE, KOMBATHUKADAVU DESOM, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1256 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1077/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakudy, taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 20 and 21 of Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 on Annexure-II final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Mala under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance on Annexure-II final report as against the mandate provided under Section 25 of Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 1256/10 2 3. Section 25 of Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act mandates that no court shall take cognizance of the offence except on a complaint filed by an officer authorised under the Act. In this case, cognizance was taken on Annexure-II final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure-II does not show that it was filed by the Sub Inspector in his capacity as an officer authorised under the Act. As cognizance could be taken only on a complaint filed by an officer authorised under the Act, as defined under Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the cognizance taken is not valid. The question has been settled by this Court in Abdul Azeez v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLD 109) and Division Bench of this Court in Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 538), as approved by the Apex Court in Jeewan Kumar Raut v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2009 SC 2763). Hence, the CRMC 1256/10 3 cognizance taken can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. The cognizance taken in C.C.No.1077/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakudy is quashed. But, it is made clear that quashing of the cognizance taken will not be a bar to file a complaint by the officer authorised under the Act or the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence on such a complaint as provided under Section 25 of Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. 9th April, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv