IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3333 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.725/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR CRIME NO. 352/2008 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS 1 AND 2 ---------------------------------- 1. JAYAN, S/O. RAJAN, AGED 29 YEARS, KOCHUVILAYIL HOUSE, ILAPPAKKULAM MURI, CHIPPUMUKKU, KATTANAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O KUNJUMUHAMMED, AGED 43 YEARS, NEDIYAVILAYIL HOUSE, KANNANKKUZHI MURI, THAMARAKKULAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. SRI.N.M.SIYAD RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, REPRESETED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, ALONG WITH CRL.MC. NO. 3340 OF 2O1O THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: (M.N) M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. ------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.3333 & 3340 of 2010 ------------------------------- COMMON ORDER These petitions are filed by the respective accused in C.C.No.725/2008 and C.C.No.418/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor to quash the cognizance taken on a final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam for the offences under Sections 20 and 21 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and Rule 48(K) read with Rule 58 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules contending that learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance on a final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, when cognizance could be taken only on a report submitted by the officer authorised under the Act. Petitioner is relying on the decision of this Court in Abdul Azeez v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT 394). The decision in Abdul Azeez'z case (supra) is upheld by CRMC 3333&3340/10 2 the Division Bench of this Court in Ismayil v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 706). 2. In view of the decision in Abdul Azeez's case (supra), as upheld by the Division Bench in Ismayil's case (supra), the cognizance taken can only be quashed. Petitions are allowed. C.C.Nos.725/2008 and 418/2007 are quashed. But, it is made clear that quashing of the cognizance taken will not affect the right of the authorised officer to file a complaint or the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence on such a complaint. 31st August, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv