IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 756 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.56/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER / ACCUSED ----------------------------------- K.P.HUSSAIN, S/O.KUNHAHEMMED THAYYIL HOUSE, KURUPPATH KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S) /DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.756 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of March 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.56 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri facing trial for offence punishable under Sec.23 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (for short, “the Act”). Complaint was preferred by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 16.3.2010 alleging that petitioner converted/reclaimed his paddy land by filling it with soil which came to the notice of the authorities on 12.2.2010. According to the first respondent, the said act of petitioner amounted to violation of Sec.3 of the Act and hence, he is punishable under Sec.23 of the said Act. Learned counsel, placing reliance on the decision in Firose v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Malappuram and another [2011 (1) KHC 615] contends that the alleged conversion/reclamation of the Crl.M.C. No.756 of 2011 -: 2 :- land if any was before the data-bank was prepared and published by the Local Monitoring Committee as required under Sec.5(4) of the Act. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the local level monitoring committee met on 14.12.2009, prepared the data-bank on 6.9.2010 but, it was published in the gazatte only on 22.9.2010. 2. Though, Sec.3 of the Act deals with prohibition of conversion or reclamation of paddy land except in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Sec.23 of the Act which deals with penalty states that the penalty is attracted only when any paddy land or wet land notified under sub- section (4) of Sec.5 is reclaimed/converted. Referring to the said provision, this Court in the decision relied on by learned counsel for petitioner held that prosecution can stand only when paddy land which is notified under Sec.5(4) of the Act is reclaimed or converted. In the present case, it is not disputed that the alleged conversion/reclamation was Crl.M.C. No.756 of 2011 -: 3 :- before 12.2.2010 while the data-bank was prepared only on 6.9.2010 and it was published in the gazatte on 22.9.2010. In the light of what I have stated above, the complaint against petitioner cannot be stand and is liable to be quashed. Resultantly this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-B complaint, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.56 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt