IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1852 of 2011() ------------------------------------- CC.78/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALY CRIME NO.69/2005 OF RAJAKKADU POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- SUDHEESH KUMAR, S/O.M. LOUIS, AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT LEO BHAVAN, CHOOZHATTUKOTTA, MALLAYAM P.O., VILAVOORKAL VILLAGE, NAIYATTINKARA THALUK, (FORESTOR, SPECIAL SQUAD, DFO, DEVIKULAM), IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE, SMT.GEETHA JOB (OZHUKAYIL), SMT.B.SIMI SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 031. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAKKADU POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN -685 602. 3. BEENY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, NEERANIYIL HOUSE, UDUMBANCHOLA, RAJAKKADU, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN- 685 602. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. MANU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Crl.MC.No. 1852 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1; COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TIGER PROTECTION AWARD GIVEN TO L.SUDHEESHKUMAR BY WILDLIFE PROTECTION SOCIETY OF INDIA DATED 26/11/2005. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE DISTINGUISHED SERVICE CERTIFICATE AWARDED BY THE KERALA FOREST DEPARTMENT TO L. SUDHEESH KUMAR IN THE YEAR 2005. ANNEXURE B1: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT WITH REGARD TO ARREST AND SEIZURE OF TIGER SKIN BY TWO PERSONS PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DATED 26/07/2005. ANNEXURE B2: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT DATED 06/06/2005 IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY WITH REGARD TO ARREST AND SEIZURE OF TEAK WOOD. ANNEXURE B3: COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 09/08/2005 AND PHOTOGRAPH IN THE PAPER DATED 10/08/2005 REGARDING ARREST OF FOUR POACHERS. ANNEXURE B4: COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 15/06/2005 REGARDING THE ARREST AND SEIZURE OF TEAK FROM PONNMUDI PLANTATIONS. ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE OFFENCE SEIZURE REPORT U/S 52 OF THE KERALA FOREST ACT SUBMITTED ON 30/04/2005 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JFCM COURT, DEVIKULAM. ANNEXURE D: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER IN OR.28/2005 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JFCM COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 30/04/2005. ANNEXURE E: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 1ST ACCUSED IN OR.28/2005 SUBSEQUENTLY CHARGE SHEETED AS C.C.NO.286/2009 OF JFMC COURT DEVIKULAM. ANNEXURE F: COPY OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE DEVIKULAM FOREST RANGE OFFICER V. SAJIKUMAR IN OR.28/2005 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JFCM COURT, DEVIKULAM. ANNEXURE G: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN OR.28/2005 FILED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JFCM-I, COURT, DEVIKULAM, CHARGE SHEETED AND RE-NUMBERED AS C.C. NO.286/2009. ANNEXURE H: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.69/2005 OF RAJAKKADU POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS PAPER IN C.C. NO.78/2006 OF THE HONOURABLE JFCM COURT, ADIMALY. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1852 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.69 of 2005 of Rajakkad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a complaint preferred by one Benny Joseph who according to the petitioner is an accused in O.R.No.28 of 2005 registered by petitioner for offences under the Forest Act. The allegation is that petitioner and accused 2 to 4 wrongfully confined the defacto complainant and voluntarily caused hurt to him on 30.04.2005 at 12 p.m. According to the petitioner, allegations against him are false and is meant to dissuade him from discharging his official duties for which he has a good track record. Learned counsel pointed out that petitioner has obtained various awards and has detected several offences as reported by various dailies. It is requested that charge against petitioner may be quashed. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Annexure-I final report was submitted some time in the year 2006, learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adimaly has taken cognizance and the case was filed as C.C.No.78 of 2006. It is seen from Annexure-I, copy of proceeding that various proceedings were taken before the learned Magistrate Crl.MC No.1852/2011 2 including examination of some of the witnesses. At this stage it is not necessary to consider whether charge framed is to be quashed or not. Petitioner can face the remaining part of the trial. 3. It is pointed out that non-bailable warrant is pending against petitioner and the case is posted on 21.07.2011. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is prepared to appear before learned Magistrate and seek regular bail/recall of warrant. It is requested that a direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate to consider the application for bail/recall of warrant preferred by petitioner on the day of surrender itself. 4. Since trial of the case has already commenced and some of the prosecution witnesses are already examined, it does not appear to me that remand of petitioner is required. If any application for bail/recall of warrant is preferred by petitioner, learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same having regard to the various aspects of the matter. I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner to appear before learned Magistrate and seek bail/recall of warrant. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of in the following lines: i. Petitioner is granted time till 22.07.2011 to appear before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adimaly and seek regular bail/recall of warrant. Crl.MC No.1852/2011 3 ii. Coercive steps if any issued against petitioner will stand in abeyance till 22.07.2011 or till petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate whichever is earlier. iii. Learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the application for bail/recall of warrant if any preferred by petitioner as expeditiously as possible having regard to the circumstances of the case and the observations made above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks