Thomas Joseph v. The Sub Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/19TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 778 of 2015 (V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------- THOMAS JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, VALIYAPARAMBIL HUSE, PERIAMPAIKAVU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLEEKKATHODU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001.
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 778 of 2015 (V) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1:
TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 04/01/2015 PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2:
TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-05-Q-5866.
EXT.P3:
TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION KL-05-X-5852.
EXT.P4:
TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE DAIRY EXTENSION OFFICER, PAMPADY.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
.............................................................................. ......................................................................... Dated this the 9th January, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the owner of a tipper lorry bearing Registration No. KL.05/Q 5866 and excavator (JCB) bearing Registration No.KL.05X-5852, which have been seized by the 1st respondent/Sub Inspector alleging violation of relevant provisions of the Mines and Mineral(Regulations and Development)Act, 1957/Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to compound the offence.
3. The issue involved in this case is, whether the petitioner, who has been proceeded against in respect of the offences under the Mines and Mineral ( Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 is entitled to have the offence compounded in view of the desire expressed from his side in this regard. 4.
Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5.
Section 23A of the 'Act and Rule 60A of the Rules enable the parties to have the offence compounded. The Rules
specifically stipulate that any offence under the Rules can be compounded subject to the satisfaction of the maximum fine prescribed under the Rules, which is stated as Rs.5,000/-. But in respect of the transportation of sand/earth without any valid pass/sanction, it is stated as an offence under the 'Act' itself by virtue of the incorporation of Section 4(1A), for which separate penalty is provided under the 'Act' itself. The maximum fine in respect of such offence prescribed under the 'Act' is stated as Rs.25,000/-. It was in the said circumstance, that this Court has been passing various orders in similar matters enabling the concerned parties to have the interim custody of the vehicle released on satisfaction of a sum of Rs.25,000/- and also by directing the concerned respondent to consider the application for compounding, if any.
6.
A question arose before this Court as to whether the prosecution proceedings could be pursued further, once the offence is compounded in accordance with the relevant provisions. This issue has already been considered and decided by this Court in 2013 (1) KLT 600 ( Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police), holding that, once the offence is compounded, there
cannot be any further prosecution proceedings.
7. In view of the law declared as mentioned herein before, there will be a direction to the concerned respondent to accept the application filed by the petitioner to compound the offence; which shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed forthwith, subject to satisfaction of a sum of Rs.25000/- for each vehicle as the compounding fee. Once the offence is compounded, no prosecution proceedings shall lie against the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps., The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk