IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1872 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.521/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMMED SALI, PADINJARAKATHU, S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, PONNANI P.O., PONNANI NAGARAM, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MP KALYANI KUTTY, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR-676101. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE RDO, TIRUR, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. R1 TO R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1872 of 2011 APPENDIX PETIONER'S ANNEXURES: A1 : A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.02.2010 ALONG WITH THE WITNESS LIST AND OTHER PARTICULARS. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smvd THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1872 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.521 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri for offence punishable under Section 23 of the Conversion of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, “the Act”). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence based on complaint dated 17.02.2010 filed by the first respondent alleging that petitioner converted 2.83 cents of paddy land comprised in R.S. No.293/4 and 51 cents in R.S. No.293/5/1 of Thavanoor Village. Complaint is based on a mahazar prepared by the Village Officer on 08.01.2010. Learned counsel contends that since no data bank was published even as on the date of complaint, prosecution under Sec.23 of the Act would not stand. 2. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that draft data bank for the area in question was prepared on 27.07.2010 but the same has not so far been published as provided under Sec.5(4)(i) of the Act. 3. In Firoze v. R.D.O. (2011 [1] KLT 868) this Court CRL.M.C. No.1872 of 2010 -: 2 :- held that though for other purposes mentioned in the Act publication of data bank is not required, for a prosecution under Sec.23 of the Act data bank must have been published. Alleged conversion must be of a land notified under Sec.5(4)(i) of the Act. Here, even on the day complaint was filed, the data bank has not been published. If that be so, prosecution under Sec.23 of the Act cannot stand and is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Cognizance taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri and proceedings pursuant to it against petitioner in C.C. No.521 of 2010 are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv