IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 604 of 2011() ----------------------------- CC.193/2006 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------- ABDUL RASHEED, S/O. KUNHAYAMMU, TEHNKARA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT(S):STATE & 2ND ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUOTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PONNUSWAMI, S/O. PAZHANISWAMI, MAHALINGAPURAM, POLLACHI-35, TAMIL NADU. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.604 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in O.R.No.8 of 2003 of the Forest Range Office, Kollengode and C.C.No.193 of 2006 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur for offence punishable under Sec.27(i)(d)(e) and 52 of the Kerala Forest Act. Case is that on 20.07.2003 the forest officials seized 901kgs of sandal wood pieces and chips and 1805kgs sandal wood powder from a coconut garden near the check post at Gopalapuram. It is alleged that petitioner is also involved in the said incident. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on the ground that there is absolutely nothing on record to show that he is involved in the alleged incident. Learned counsel contended that there is no material on record to show that the property wherefrom the sandal wood was seized belong to or is in the possession of petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that PWs.1 and 2 are already examined in the courts below and since they were not cross examined on behalf of petitioner, he has requested to recall PWs.1 ans 2 and Crl.M.C.No.604 of 2011 -: 2 :- that was allowed. Summons was issued to CWs.3 and 4 and since they did not appear non bailable warrant was issued to them. 2. It is seen that the case was registered in the year 2003 and the final report was submitted sometime in the year 2006. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence in the year 2006 and charge was framed against petitioner. There was no challenge then. Now examination of prosecution witnesses has already commenced as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. At this stage it is not necessary to interfere under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to raise all his defence before the trial court. With the above observation this petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge