Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 7 docs - [View All]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Kannanthodika Moosakoya vs State Of Kerala, Represented By on 20 February, 2008
Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Akhil Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 11 February, 2008

User Queries
Kerala High Court
Lalijan vs State Of Kerala on 22 September, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 3884 of 2010()

1. LALIJAN

... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA

... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.SAKIR.K.H.

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :22/09/2010

O R D E R

M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

--------------------------

Crl.M.C.No.3884 of 2010

--------------------------

ORDER

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.554/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor, taken cognizance for the offences under Rules 4, 21 and 58 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A1 final report submitted by Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that offence under the MMDR Act and the Rules could be taken only on a complaint filed by the officer authorised under the Act and the Rules and not on a final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 538) and the decision of the Apex Court in Jeewan Kumar Raut v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2009 SC 2763).

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 3884/10 2

3. Cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules was taken by the learned Magistrate on Annexure-A1 final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure by Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam. As held by this Court in Abdul Azeez v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLD 109) and Ismail v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KHC 677), cognizance taken for the offences under the MMDR Act, on a final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and not on a complaint filed by an officer authorised under the Act, can only be quashed, with liberty to the authorised officer to file a complaint.

Petition is allowed. The cognizance taken in C.C.No.554/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor on Annexure-A1 final report is quashed. It is made clear that quashing of the cognizance taken will not affect the rights of the officer authorised under the Act to file a complaint or the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence in accordance with law.

22nd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv