IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1486 of 2011() ------------------------------------ C.C.NO.909/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, N.PARAVUR --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. BABU, S/O.JOSEPH, MANAKKIL HOUSE, KURUMBATHURUTH, CHENDAMANGALAM, N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. VALSON, S/O.NATARAJAN, AMMANCHERY HOUSE, KURUMBATHURUTH, CHENDAMANGALAM, N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUALM. REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTHENVELIKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1486 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in Crime No.143 of 2008 of Puthenvelikkara Police Station and C.C. No.909 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short, “the Act”). Allegation is that on 17.05.2008 petitioner was found transporting river sand in a country boat without authority and in violation of the Act. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on the contention that learned Magistrate was not correct in taking cognizance of the offence on a final report submitted by the police under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”), in view of the decisions in Abdul Azeez v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT 394) and Ismayil v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 706). 2. Under Sec.25 of the Act, cognizance can be taken of the offence under the Act only on a complaint preferred by the Officers mentioned therein. But in the present case cognizance is taken on the final report filed by the police under Sec.173(2) of CRL.M.C. No.1486 of 2011 -: 2 :- the Code which is not permissible as explained in the decisions referred supra. Hence cognizance taken is illegal, cannot stand and it is liable to be set aside. I make it clear that it is open to the Officer concerned if he is authorised under Sec.25 of the Act to file complaint before the learned Magistrate in respect of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner subject to the law of limitation and the power of learned Magistrate to condone the delay if any in filing the complaint. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The cognizance taken by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur in C.C. No.909 of 2008 based on the final report submitted by the Puthenvelikkara Police in Crime No.143 of 2008 and all further proceedings in C.C. No.909 of 2008 are quashed without prejudice to the right of the Officer authorised in that behalf to file appropriate complaint before the learned Magistrate in respect of the same, subject of course to the law of limitation and the power of learned Magistrate to condone the delay if any in filing the complaint. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv