IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1210 of 2010() -------------------------------- CC.915/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. BEENA JIJI, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. JIJI V.ALEXANDER, VALAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KULATHUPUZHA POST, THINKAL KARIKKAKOM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. JIJI V.ALEXANDER, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. V.C.ANIYANKUNJU, VALAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KULATHUPUZHA POST, THINKAL KARIKKAKOM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------- P.S.JAYACHANDRA PANICKER, GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOLLAM-2. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1210 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 ORDER The petitioners are the two accused in C.C.No.915/2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Punalur for an offence punishable under Section 4(1) read with Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. The petitioners seek to quash Annexure-A4 complaint and the subsequent proceedings pending before the Magistrate. The above case involve summons trial. 2. It is too early for this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the complaint and subsequent proceedings and also consider whether the ingredients of the offences are made out in the prosecution records. The Magistrate can state the substance of accusation to the accused and record his plea under Section 251 Cr.P.C only if the substance of accusation contains the ingredients of the offence alleged. In the light of the decision in Kamala Rajaram v. State of Kerala (2005(3) KLT 617), it is open to the petitioners to raise the present contentions at the time Crl.M.C.No.1210/2010 : 2 : when the learned Magistrate records their plea under Section 251 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays for exemption from appearance while raising the above plea before the Magistrate. I am inclined to permit the petitioners to be represented through their counsel. Accordingly, if the petitioners file a petition for exemption during the stage of 251 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate shall consider the contention of the petitioners while recording their plea without insisting on their personal appearance. The plea of the accused can be recorded through their counsel. This Crl.M.C is accordingly disposed of as above. Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj