IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 584 of 2011() ----------------------------------- C.C.NO.14/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALAPPUZHA. ..................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- ANILKUMAR, AGED 36, S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR KULANGATTIL HOUSE, KADUKARA, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.C.G.RAJ KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.584 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of February, 2011 ORDER Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent. 2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.424 of 2009 of Mararikulam Police Station and C.C.No.14 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha for offence punishable under Sec.17(4) r/w Sec.23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short, "the Act”). Petitioners challenge the final report and cognizance taken thereon by the learned Magistrate on the ground that both are without jurisdiction. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Ismayil Vs. State of Kerala (2010(3) KLT 706) and also the order of this Court dated February 7, 2011 in Crl.M.C.No.151 of 2011 following the decision in Ismayil Vs. State of Kerala (supra). I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. It is not disputed that under Sec.25 of the Act the Magistrate could take cognizance of the said offence only on a complaint preferred by the officer authorized in that behalf by the State Government or the District Collector as the case may Crl.M.C.No.584 of 2011 -: 2 :- be. The Division Bench in the decision referred supra has held that a final report submitted by the police under Sec.173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”) cannot be treated as a complaint as contemplated under Sec.25 of the Act. If that be so, based on the final report filed under Sec.173(2) of the Code learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence. Thus, cognizance taken is illegal. But, I make it clear that this order will not prevent the officer authorized in that behalf in filing a complaint as provided under law if he is otherwise entitled to that course. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed and the final report in Crime No.424 of 2009 of Mararikulam Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioners in C.C.No.14 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha are quashed with the observation made above. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-