IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 694 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------ [CC.NO.357/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PEERUMEDU, O.R. NO.1/2006 OF PERIYAR FOREST RANGE, PERIYAR EAST DIVISION,THEKKADY] .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. CHELLAPANDI, S/O. CHINNATHEVAN, MANNATH HOUSE, KUMMANATHODU, UTHAMAPALAYAM P.O.,THENI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 2. PASUPATHI, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 1375, NEW SAW MILL, PERIYAKULAM ROAD, THENI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 3. SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O. SHEIK, RESIDING AT VALIA PALLI THERUVU, UTHAMAPALAYAM P.O., THENI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 4. P.SHEIK MOIDEEN, NO.13/3/34, VALIYAPALLI, THERUVU, THAMAPALAYAM P.O., THENI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 5. R.RAJA, S/O. MURALICHAMI, PANNAYAPURAM NRT NAGAR, UTHAMAPALAYAM P.O., THENI DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU – 625 533. BY ADVS. MR.G.HARIHARAN, MR.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. CRL.M.C. NO. 694/2010-D: 2. RANGE OFFICER, PERIYAR FOREST RANGE, PERIYAR EAST DIVISION, THEKKADY, PIN – 683 536, IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 694 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 18th day of March,2010 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.C.357/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Peermade taken cognizance for the offences under sections 27 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act on the allegation that petitioners trespassed into the wildlife protection area and removed the iron post worth Rs.750/- and thereby committed the offences. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that ingredients of an offence under section 27 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act is not attracted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government pleader were heard. Crl.M.C.694/2010 2 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that petitioners 2 to 5 are residents of the sanctuary and therefore they have a right to enter into the sanctuary and in such circumstances, no offence under section 27 of the Act is attracted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that based on the materials produced, it cannot be said that petitioners are residents of the sanctuary or even permitted to reside in the sanctuary and in any case it is a matter for evidence and the case cannot be quashed. 5. On the materials available, I cannot agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence under section 27 and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 is not attracted. Therefore the case cannot be quashed as sought for. Petitioners are at liberty to raise the contentions before the learned Magistrate and if advised, seek an order of discharge under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl.M.C.694/2010 3 Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006