IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3257 of 2010() ------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2010 IN M.C.NO.159/2010/M OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI). .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------- ROSSY PAULOSE, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O.PAULOSE, EDASSERRY HOUSE, CHAMPANOOR, ANGAMALY, ALUVA ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.V.P.JOLY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. E.T. JOSE EDASSERRY, CHAMBANOOR, ANGAMALY , ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3257 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, against whom proceedings were initiated under Section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure in M.C.No.159/2010 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-1 order, passed under Section 138 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure-1 order shows that in spite of preliminary order and the show cause notice, petitioner did not appear or showed any cause and therefore, the Sub Divisional Magistrate made the conditional order absolute directing the petitioner to remove the branches of the disputed trees within ten days from the date of receipt of the order. 2. Petitioner would contend that order is illegal as he was not served with any notice or conditional order. In view of the contention, Sub CRMC 3257/10 2 Divisional Magistrate was called upon to produce the served copy of the show cause notice and the preliminary order. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the copy of the preliminary order served on the petitioner. Report on the reverse side of the preliminary order shows that petitioner refused to receive the notice and therefore, in the presence of two witnesses, the Village Officer had affixed the preliminary order and the notice at the house of the petitioner. In such circumstances, Annexure-1 order cannot be quashed as sought for. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge Annexure-1 order before revisional court, as the order is revisable. With liberty to challenge Annexure-1 order by filing a criminal revision, this petition is dismissed. 13th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv