IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 443 of 2011() ----------------------------- (OR.NO.2/2008 OF FOREST RANGE, KOTTIYOOR) ....... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------ 1. K.YAKOOB, S/O.ABOOBACKER, KALPA HOUSE, CHAVASSERY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. ELAMKUTTYKANDY RAMLA, W/O.NAZAR, CHAVASSERY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE ----------------------------------------------- 1. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KOTTIYOOR RANGE, EDAYAR P.O., KANNOTH, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHEMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ........................................... CRL.M.C.NO.443 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011. O R D E R Petitioners are accused in O.R.No.2/2008 of Forest Range Office, Kottiyoor and C.C.No.25/2010 of J.F.M.C, Mattannur for the offences punishable under Sections 6(5), 6(6) and 7(1) of the Kerala Promotion of Tree growth in Non- Forest Areas Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”)and Rule 3(iii) and 23 of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1975 (for short “the Rules”). Prosecution case is that petitioners cut down teak trees and removed the same from the property belonging to and in the possession of respondent No.2 . According to the petitioners, no offence is made out since the alleged place of occurrence is not notified as per the Act and the Rules. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court reported in Sukumaran v, State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT 546). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. It is not as if the petitioners could not urge their : 2 : CRL.M.C.NO.443 OF 2011 contentions before the learned Magistrate when charge is to be framed. It is open to the petitioners to urge all their contentions before the learned Magistrate. There is no reason why this Court should interfere at this stage under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Resultantly, this petition is closed without prejudice to the right of petitioners to take up all their plea/defence before the learned Magistrate. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. cl : 3 : CRL.M.C.NO.443 OF 2011