IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1025 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CC.644/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1-3: ------------------------------------------------ 1. RATHEESH, POLAKKAL HOUSE, KAVIYOOR. 2. JAGAN JOSY, KANNANKARA KANDATHIL, VALLAMKULAM MURI, ERAVIPEROOR. 3. ANCHU, MALAYAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM MURI, ERAVIPEROOR. BY ADV. MR.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS/STATE: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, ALONG WITH CRMC NO.1026 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1025 & 1026 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 29th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioners in Crl.M.C.1025/2010 are the accused in C.C.644/2006 and petitioners in Crl.M.C.1026/2010 is the accused in C.C.13/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's court, Thiruvalla. C.C.644/2006 was taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 20 and 21 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of sand Act, 2001 and Rule 58 (1) of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules on Annexure-A final report submitted by Sub Inspector of police, Keezhvaypur police station. C.C.13/2008 was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate on Annexure-A final Crmc 1025 & 1026/10 2 report submitted by Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla police station for the offence under Sections 20 and 21 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of sand Act, 2001. Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that in view of Section 25 of the Act cognizance could have been taken only on a complaint filed by an officer authorized by the Act and not on a final report submitted by the police and therefore, cognizance taken are to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Cognizance in both the cases were taken on the final reports submitted under Crmc 1025 & 1026/10 3 Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the police officer after investigation. Section 25 of the Act mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence except on a complaint filed by an officer authorized under the Act. As held by this court in Sherif and others v. Sub Inspector of Police, Konni and another (2010 (1) KLD 109) following the Division Bench decision in Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 538), approved by the Apex court in Jeevankumar Raut v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2009 SC 2763), cognizance could not have been taken by the learned Magistrate except on a complaint filed by an officer authorized under the Act. Hence cognizance taken is bad and can only be quashed. Crmc 1025 & 1026/10 4 Petitions are allowed. Cognizance taken by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla in C.C.644/2006 and C.C.13/2008 are quashed. But it is made clear that quashing of the cognizance taken, will not be a bar for the officer authorized under the Act to lodge a complaint or the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences, as provided under Section 25 of Act. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.