IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 858 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CC.512/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR CRIME NO.232/2009 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANOJ, S/O.SIVAN AGED 24 YEARS, THACHUVELIL HOUSE MUDIYOORKONAM MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. LAVAKUMAR, S/O.BHASKARANPILLAI AGED 35 YEARS, THOTTATHIL HOUSE MULAMBUZHA MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.858 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 11th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.C.512/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 20, 21 and 23 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal Sand Act, 2001 on Annexure-A1 final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure by Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences on the final report in violation of the Provisions of Section 25 of the Act. Crmc 858/10 2 Reliance was placed on the decision of this court in Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 538). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Section 25 of the Act mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint filed by an officer authorised 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 decision of the Apex court in Jeevankumar Raut v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2009 SC 2763) learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence under the Act on a final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Crmc 858/10 3 Criminal Procedure. Annexure-A1 final report does not show that it was even filed by the officer authorised under the Act or that it is filed as a complaint. In such circumstances, cognizance taken can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. C.C.512/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor is quashed. It is made clear that quashing of the cognizance, will not prevent the officer authorised under the Act to file a complaint or the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence as provided under the Act. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.