IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1028 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.36/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- CHERACHAM VEETIL THADAMTHOTTIL KHADEEJA HAJUMMA, W/O. KUNNUMMAL AHAMMAD HAJI, MUNNIYOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SRI.K.RAKESH. RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -682 031. 2. M.P. KALLYANIKUTTY, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 101. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1028 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.36 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri and facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 23 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act (for short, “the Act”). Eespondent No.2, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur filed the complaint on 15.01.2010 alleging that petitioner, in violation of Section 3 of the Act has converted or reclaimed his paddy land and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 23 of the Act. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the said offence based on the allegations in the complaint. It is contended by the learned counsel that since data bank is not prepared and published in the manner prescribed and as required under Section 5(4)(i) of the Act, no prosecution would lie under Section 23 of the said Act since prosecution is permissible only when in violation of the provisions of the Act a person converts or reclaims a paddy land or wet land which is notified under Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Act. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that data bank though prepared recently has not so far been published in any manner whatsoever. 2. This Court in Kaipadath Property Development Company (Pvt) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 (1) KLT 526) after Crl.MC No.1028/2011 2 considering the relevant provisions of the Act has held that prosecution for violation of Section 3 of the Act permissible only when conversion or reclamation is in respect of land notified under Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Act. Admittedly the notification has not so far been published in the manner prescribed. If that be so, in the light of the decision referred supra prosecution against petitioner cannot stand and is liable to be quashed. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-A, complaint, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.36 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks