IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 631 of 2011() ----------------------------- CC.205/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT - I, IDUKKI .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------- SAJI JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,ILLICKAL VEEDU, THALLAKANAM KARA, KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH,J. ........................................... CRL.M.C.NO.631 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011. O R D E R Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondent. 2. Petitioner is accused in Crime No.128/2010 of Kanjikuzhy police station for the offence punishable under Section 17(4) read with Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short “the Act”). Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate took cognizance on the final report submitted by the police in Crime No.128/2010. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him in C.C.No.205/2010 on the ground that cognizance taken on a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short “the Code”) in the light of the decisions of this Court in Abdul Azeez v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT 394) and in Ismayil v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 706) is illegal. : 2 : CRL.M.C.NO.631 OF 2011 3. It is seen from Annexure A-II that the police has submitted a final report under Section 173(2) of the Act alleging commission of the offence as aforesaid. This Court in the decisions referred above has held that in view of Section 25 of the Act, cognizance of the offence under the said Act can be taken only on a written complaint filed by the officer authorized in that behalf by the State Government or the District Collector as the case may be and further, that a report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code cannot be treated as a complaint for the purpose of the Act (as stated in Section 25). 4. Assuming that the police officer who filed the final report is authorized to file complaint, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on the final report as above stated is clearly illegal in the light of Section 25 of the Act and the decisions referred supra. Hence, cognizance taken and all subsequent proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.205/2010 cannot stand and are liable to be set aside. But I make it clear that this order will not prohibit the : 3 : CRL.M.C.NO.631 OF 2011 officer authorized in that behalf filing a proper complaint as stated in Section 25 of the Act and the learned Magistrate passing appropriate orders on such complaint. Resultantly, with the observations made above, this petition is allowed. Cognizance taken by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Idukki on the final report submitted by Kanjikuzhy police in Crime No.128/2010 and further proceedings against petitioner in C.C.No.205/2010 of that court are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. cl