IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1047 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.312/2010, CC.826/10 & ST 3222/10 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. .................... (CRIMES OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION) ............ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ OMANAKKUTTAN, 43 YEARS OLD, S/O.SADANANDAN, KUNNUVIL PUTHENVEETIL, PALLIMOM.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP, SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI, SMT.V.V.RISANI, SRI.SANEESH KUNJUKUNJU. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1047 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of April, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is accused in C.C.Nos.312 and 826 of 2010 and S.T.No.3222 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,, Paravur (in Kollam District) for offences punishable under Sec. 20 and 21 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. According to the learned counsel for petitioner cognizance taken on reports submitted by the police is illegal and proceedings are liable to be stopped under Sec.258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”). Accordingly petitioner has filed separate applications in all the cases to stop the proceeding under Sec.258 of the Code. Prayer in this petition is to direct the learned Magistrate to dispose of the said petition. Learned counsel says that petitioner on the strength of the cases filed against him in the above said cases is likely to be detained under the provisions of the the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (for short, "the KAAP Act”) and that if the petitions filed by the petitioner for his discharge in the above cases are allowed, he could successfully defend the attempt to detain him under the Crl.M.C.No.1047 of 2011 -: 2 :- KAAP Act. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. It is seen that the petitions are filed before learned Magistrate on 08.09.2010 (in C.C.No.312 of 2010) and 26.03.2011 (in C.C.Nos.826 of 2010 and S.T.No.3222 of 2010). It is not as if disposal of the petitions have been over delayed. But, the apprehension of petitioner has also to be borne in mind. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of directing the learned Magistrate to expedite disposal of the petitions filed by the petitioner in the case above referred for discharge under Sec.258 of the Code (if the same are not already disposed of). (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge