IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 662 of 2006() --------------------- MC.33/2002 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................. PETITIONER / PETITIONER : ------------------------------------------ M.J. JOHN, MYLAKKALCHALIL HOUSE, MUTHOLAPURAM P.O., ELANJI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS / STATE & COUNTER PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. P.D. MATHEW, PALLICKAMPARAMBIL MUTHOLAPURAM, ELANJI. 3. ANTONY CYRIAC, M/S. PERUMALIL GRANITES ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM, PERUVA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 662 of 2006() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S ANNEXURE - 1 : COPY OF THE REPORT NO. 156/02 DT. 29/8/02 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER. ANNEXURE - 2 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE DT. 8/5/03. ANNEXURE - 3 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE DT. 11/11/05. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.662 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 Order The petitioner in M.C.No.33 of 2002 on the file of SDM Court, Muvattupuzha has come to this court with a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The operative portion of the said order is as follows: “1. The quarry will be allowed to start functioning only after obtaining valid licenses and permissions from the concerned departments and local body administration as shown below: 1. Permission from the Mining and Geology Department. 2. Licence from the Chief Controller of Explosives. 3. Blastsman licence. 4. Mining Mates Certificate. 5. Licence from local body. 2. Blasting in the quarry is to be conducted Crl.M.C.662/06 2 strictly as per the conditions of Explosives Department.” The petitioner contends that the procedure contemplated under the Cr.P.C. has not been followed and that the order is illegal and unsustainable. The petitioner has not challenged the order by filing revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court can treat the petition as a revision petition and pass appropriate orders. This Crl.M.C. was filed in the year 2006. If the same is to be now converted as a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., this court has to call for the records and examine whether the procedure was followed correctly or not. Such a request cannot be made now. The petitioner can file a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Whether the delay is to be condoned or not is a matter to be considered by that court when such a revision petition is filed. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of with the above observation. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.662/06 3 Crl.M.C.662/06 4