IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18412 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- JAMES VARKEY, PLATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KANJIYAR.P.O, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, AYYAPPANKOVIL RANGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.18412 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Against the petitioner, proceedings have been initiated under the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. Offence 19 of 2004 has been registered. The allegation against him is that a dead `Mulakunari tree' was cut and removed by him from a land in his possession. Though the offence was registered as early as in 2004 and the sword of this prosecution has been hanging over the head of the petitioner, no action has thereupon been taken. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come before this Court with the short contention that no action can legally be taken against him under the provisions of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. It is contended that `Mulakunari tree' is not a tree which falls within the definition of the expression `tree' in Section 2 (e) of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. Section 2(e) of the Preservation of Trees Act reads as follows: “Section 2 e: `tree' means any of the following species of trees, namely : Sandalwood (Santalum album), Teak (Tectona grandis), Rosewood (Dalbergia latifolia), Irul (Xylia Xylocarpa), Thempavu (Terminalia tomantosa), Kampakam (Hopea parviflora), Chempakam (Michelia chempaca), Chadachi (grewia tiliaefolia), Chandana vempu (Cedrela toona), Chenni (Tetrameles nudiflora).” W.P(C). No.18412 of 2008 2 2. A number of opportunities have been given to the learned Government Pleader to respond to the prayer/contention of the petitioner. Even as on date, the file has not been placed before the court and there is no attempt to assert that any offence has been committed by the petitioner for which legal action can be taken against him. 3. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that termination of this long pending proceedings has got to be brought about and in the total absence of any attempt to justify such proceedings against the petitioner, I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can and ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioner. 4. In the result : i) This Writ Petition is allowed; ii) All further proceedings in Offence No.19 of 2004 registered on 15.07.04 as per Ext.P2 against the petitioner is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-