IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 683 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.210/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT - I, IDUKKI .................... (CRIME NO.123/10 OF KANJIKUZHY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- LIJO, S/O.AUGUSTINE, CHENKITTEL HOUSE, PAKUTHIPALAM BHAGAM, KEERITHODU 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 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.683 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in Crime No.123 of 2010 of Kanjikuzhi Police Station and C.C. No.210 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Idukki for offences punishable under Sections 17(4) and 23 read with Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001 (for short, “the Act”). Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on the contention that in view of Secs.24 and 25 of the Act cognizance could have been taken only on a complaint preferred by the Officer authorised in that behalf by the State Government or the District Collector but in the present case cognizance is taken on the final report (Annexure-AII) submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Annexure-AII is the final report submitted by the Police under Sec.173(2) of the Code. Cognizance has taken by the learned Magistrate on that report which, in the light of the decisions in Abdul Azeez v. State of Kerala (2010 [1] KLT CRL.M.C. No.683 of 2011 -: 2 :- 314) and Ismayil v. State of Kerala (2010 [3] KLT 706) is illegal since cognizance could not be taken in view of Secs.24 and 25 of the Act except on a complaint preferred by the Officer authroised in that behalf. Hence cognizance taken and all subsequent proceeding against petitioner cannot stand and are liable to be quashed. But I make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of the Officer authorised in that behalf by the State Government or the District Collector filing a complaint before the learned Magistrate in respect of the offence allegedly committed by petitioner. 3. Subject to the observation made above, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.123 of 2010 of Kanjikuzhi police station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding in C.C. No.210 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Idukki against petitioner are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv