IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4387 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- [OR.NO.21/2010 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT , KALPETTA] .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1: -------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. TRANS ASIAN SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD., TRANS ASIA CORPORATE PARK, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. JOHNSON MATHEW, MANAGING DIRECTOR- M/S. TRANS ASIAN SHIPPING SERVICE (P)LTD. TRANS ASIA CORPORATE PARK, KAKKAND, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT KODINJORR HOUSE, PADMUGAL, KAKKANAD. BY ADVS. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR, SRI. M.P. RETNAM, SRI.P.H.SHAJI (THRIKKAKARA). RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MEPPADY RANGE, WYNAD – 670 001. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4387 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 24th November, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in O.R.21/2010 of Meppady Forest Range, Wayanad district, registered under Section 52 of Forest Act, 1961 on Annexure-I Form-I Forest offence seizure report. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the crime contending that petitioners have not committed any offence and the dispute is in respect of 20 hectres of land which is not a forest land. It is contended that petitioners have already instituted W.P.C.21462/2006 wherein this court by Annexure-VII order granted an order of stay restraining the forest officials from destroying the cultivation or obstructing Crmc 4387/10 2 their peaceful enjoyment and possession of the property and in such circumstances, registration of the case is only an abuse of process of the court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor, it is clear that the dispute in W.P.C.21468/2006 is in respect of 20 hectres of land covered by Ext.P4(a) EFL notification marked in W.P.C.21468/2006. In view of Annexure-VII order, the forest officials cannot cause any obstruction to the peaceful possession, enjoyment and cultivation of that property, so long as the said order subsists. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed Crmc 4387/10 3 out that out of the total extent of 40 hectres of land, Ext.P4(a) EFL notification in W.P.C.21468/2006 is in respect of only 20 hectres, because there was no necessity to issue notification in respect of the land already vested in the Government and under the guise of Annexure-VII order of stay petitioners are not entitled to trespass into the vested forest. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find it necessary to quash the crime as sought for. So long as Annexure-VII order of stay subsists, forest officials cannot file a final report in respect of any portion of the property covered by Annexure-VII order of stay which evidently could only be in respect of 20 hectres of land covered in Ext.P4 EFL notification. If any offence is committed in Crmc 4387/10 4 respect of the remaining vested forest, on investigation they are entitled to file a final report in accordance with law. If the offence alleged is in respect of the land covered by Annexure-VII order, petitioner shall not be arrested. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.