IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 653 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/08/2009 IN CRMP.3748/2009 IN CC.534/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:- --------------------------------------------------------- SEBASTIAN CHOKKATTU, S/O. C.V.JOSEPH, ESTATE BUNGALOW, PADAGIRI, NELLIAMPATHY. BY ADV. MR. K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT/STATE:- -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, NELLIAMPATHY, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 653 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. ORDER The petitioner who claims to be the owner and Managing Director of Mira Flores Estate, Nelliampathy in Palakkad District, challenges Annexure VI order dated 06.08.2009 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alathur dismissing his application for discharge filed as C.M.P. No. 3748 of 2009. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with accused Nos. 2 to 8 by violating the lease agreement, trespassed into the Government Reserve Forest land and plucked coffee berries and forcefully transplanted the coffee so plucked and thereby causing a loss of Rs.5000/- to the Government and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 27(4)(b) and 27(1)(e)(III) (IV) of the Kerala Forest Act. Crl.R.P. No. 653/2010 : 2 : 3. The petitioner claims to be a non-resident Indian business man who is not involved in the day-to-day management of the aforesaid Estate. According to him, the management of the aforesaid estate is being done by the officials of the Estate. In Crl. M.P. No. 3748 of 2009 referred to above, he sought for his discharge in C.C. No. 534 of 1998 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. There is no dispute that even the prosecution allegation against the petitioner is wrongly stated in the impugned order (Annexure VI) that he was loping trees from the leased land. That is not the allegation so far as the present case is concerned. The learned Magistrate has passed a cryptic order which reads as follows: “Heard both sides. The allegation against petitioners and other accused is looping trees from the leased land. Prima facie case is made out. The charge cannot be treated as groundless. Accused has not appeared before this Court so far. Hence the C.M.P Crl.R.P. No. 653/2010 : 3 : dismissed.” 6. The minimum that was required by the court below was to advert to the case of the prosecution and also the materials in support of the prosecution so as to make out a prima facie case against the accused before passing in the impugned order. Hence, Annexure VI order dated 06.08.2009 is set aside and C.M.P. No. 3748 of 2009 shall stand restored to file with a direction to dispose of the said application for discharge afresh after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard. Warrants, if any, pending against the petitioner shall stand recalled. This revision is disposed of as above. Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 653/2010 : 4 :