IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 908 of 2011(A) ------------------------------------ [CC.NO.491/2010 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATES' COURT, KASARAGOD] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- JAGADEESHA, S/O.SANJEEVA, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALAKUNNU HOUSE, NETTANIGE VILLAGE, POST KINNINGAR- 671 543, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER, SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS/STATE: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR FOREST DIVISION, KANNUR – 670 001. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.908 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused No.8 in C.C.No.491 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod for offences punishable under various provisions of the Kerala Forest Act. Case is that rose wood logs were illicitly transported on a motor bike for use of first respondent. In the course of investigation petitioner was impleaded as accused No.8 being registered owner of the vehicle and accused No.9 was impleaded as the person in possession. According to the petitioner he is not involved in the incident since even before the alleged incident he had transferred the vehicle to accused No.9 as seen from Annexures-A1 and A2, sale agreement and delivery note. Petitioner therefore seeks to quash proceeding against him. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Annexure-A5, order of the DFO, Kannur dated 27.02.2010. 2. Authenticity of Annexures-A1 and A2, sale agreement and delivery note is a matter to be decided in evidence. It is not as if accused No.9 as alleged purchaser of the motor bike from petitioner admits Annexures-A1 and A2. Petitioner has to prove in the trial court that even prior to the alleged incident he had transferred the vehicle as he claims and that merely for the reason that registration of the vehicle continued in his name, he is not liable for the offences attributed. That is not a matter which this Court can decide under Crl.MC No.908/2011 2 Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Learned counsel pointed out that petitioner is now working abroad and that it is difficult for him to attend the court at the time of trial. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to seek permanent exemption from personal appearance in the court below as provided under law in case his identity is not disputed. If any such application is preferred learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall consider the request and pass appropriate orders and in case the application is allowed, permit petitioner to appear through lawyer and defend the case. With the above direction this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks