IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3364 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.76/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- KARIMPANAKKAL AHAMMED, S/O.MOIDU, THEKKENKUTOOR P.O., PULOOR, THALAKAD, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.3364 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: 16.08.2010 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.76/2010 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri for an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Vet Land Act. The petitioner seeks to quash Annexure I 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 Anandavel v. Food Inspector and another (2010 (3) ILR Kerala 145), it is open to the petitioner to raise the present contentions at the time when the learned Magistrate records his plea under Crl. M.C. No.3364 of 2010 2 Section 251 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for exemption from appearance while raising the above plea before the Magistrate. I am inclined to permit the petitioner to be represented through his counsel. Accordingly, if the petitioner files a petition for exemption during the stage of 251 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate shall consider the contention of the petitioner while recording his plea without insisting on his personal appearance. The plea of the accused can be recorded through his counsel. This Crl.M.C is accordingly disposed of as above. Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj