IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2820 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.15/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA ST.328/1997 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-I (FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED. ------------------------------------ RAJU PAUL, KOONAMMANAYIL HOUSE, MULAPPURAM, KARIMANNOOR, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SMT.G.ROOPARANI SMT.LINDA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS. -------------------------------------- 1. N.SADANANDAN, SECRETARY, KARIMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 2821 OF 2003, THE COURT ON 12/08/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.Nos.2820 & 2821 OF 2003 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Having regard to the questions raised, these two criminal revision petitions can be disposed of together. 2. The petitioners herein bid a right to collect river sand from a river flowing through the limits of the Karimannoor Grama Panchayat. The amounts that they have to pay in terms of that, going by the decisions of this Court in Suresh v. Execution Officer [1995 (2) KLT 1975] and Pudunagaram Grama Panchayat v. Saleem [2005 (4) KLT 401], are recoverable under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, which, under the second proviso thereto, provides for prosecution of the defaulter, if for any reason, the distraint or a sufficient distraint of a defaulter's property is impracticable in terms of the first proviso to that Section. Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy and Appeal) Rules, 1996 provides for imposition of fine and other Crl.RP.2820/03 & 2821/03 Page numbers matters referable to the second proviso to Section 210 of the Act. The courts below have concurrently held in both the cases that the fact that the petitioners had bid in auction and their liability under the bid cannot be disputed. It was also further held that both of them had defaulted in payment of the dues. Demand and action against the properties of the petitioners have also been proved to the satisfaction of the courts below in terms of the first proviso to Section 210. It was under such circumstances that in the summary trial cases, the petitioners were sentenced to pay the amounts that were due and an amount of Rs.2,500/- each as fine, which, as noticed by the lower appellate court, is rightly minimal. 3. The contentions of the petitioners are that a lap of the river flows through the forest area and they were obstructed from drawing sand from that area since the forest officials objected to that and both the revision petitioners were party to O.P.No.3499/97, the judgment of which is Ext.P12 in S.T.No.313/97, from which, Crl.R.P.2821/03 arises. That Crl.RP.2820/03 & 2821/03 Page numbers judgment was rendered on 5.3.1997, much before the institution of the complaint against the revision petitioners before the Magistrate's court. The said judgment is eloquent even on facts, in as much as it categorically states that the petitioners had paid seigniorage fee in terms of the Kerala Forest Produces Transit Rules, 1975 and that they were wanting this Court to order refund of such amount. This Court had noticed that the petitioners had enjoyed the facility and had collected sand after paying seigniorage fee within the period of collection to the end. Under such circumstances, the defence set up by them in these criminal cases based on the alleged interference by the forest officials do not stand. I do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate in summary jurisdiction and confirmation of the court of sessions in appeal. In the result, these revision petitions fail. They are accordingly dismissed. The revision petitioners are directed to appear before the court of first instance on 24.9.2008 to suffer Crl.RP.2820/03 & 2821/03 Page numbers sentence. Otherwise the court of first instance will take necessary steps to execute the sentence. The bail bonds stand cancelled. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.13/8. 22.8.2008 These matters are listed for 'to be spoken to' at the request of the revision petitioner. Spoke. I do not find any clerical error or other ground to call for any correction on the judgment dated 12.8.2008 in these revision petitions. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.