IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3089 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.855/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED -------------------------- SUDHEER, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.KASIM, FIZAS, KOVIL PARAMBU, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.VISHNU SOMAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3089 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 22nd October 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.855/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha, taken cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1) of P.D.P.P Act on the allegation that petitioner caused damage to the compound wall of the building where Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Alappuzha Wing is functioning, to the extent of Rs.743/- and thereby committed the offence. According to the prosecution on 28/6/2009 first accused broke the foundation of a portion of the compound wall and inserted a PVC pipe, so as to let water from his compound flow to the compound, where Vigilance office is functioning. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel Crmc 3089/09 2 appearing for the petitioner is that based on Annexure-A2, ingredients of an offence is not made and therefore, learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence. 4. As per Section 3(1) of the P.D.P.P Act whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of public property other than public property of the nature referred to in sub section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to five years and with fine. Public property is defined under Section 2(b) as any property whether immovable or movable including any machinery which is owned by, or in the possession of, or under the control of Central Government or State Government or the local authority. When the case of the prosecution is that building is in the possession of the Vigilance department and the compound wall also belongs to the State Government and damage was caused by committing mischief, it cannot be said that ingredients of an offence is not attracted. Question whether there is conclusive evidence to prove the commission of the offence by the petitioner, is not to be decided in this Crmc 3089/09 3 petition. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate. If the charge is framed, learned Magistrate may dispose the case as expeditiously as possible. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.