High Court of KeralaWP(C)/3858/2013disposed of

Shajahan v. The S.I Of Police, Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta District

2015-03-09Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/18TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 3858 of 2013 (F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

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

1. SHAJAHAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. RASAVAKUTTY RAWTHER, PARAVILA THEKKETHIL HOUSE, ADIKKATTUKULANGARA, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MEVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT (OWNER OF JCB BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL - 31- E - 1962 AND OWNER OF A LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO KL - 23 - C - 3173)

2. SAJI KHAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. KABEER, RESIDING AT AMBOZHICHIRA PADEETTATHIL HOUSE, ADIKKATTUKULANGARA, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MEVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO KL - 31- D - 693)

3. AJI KHAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. KABEER, RESIDING AT AMBOZHICHIRA PADEETTATHIL HOUSEM ADIKKATTUKULANGARA, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MEVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO KL - 31 - D - 3899) BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S):

------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 671 543. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/

WP(C).No. 3858 of 2013 (F) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

-------------------------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.299 OF 2013 DATED 5.2.2013 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 3858 of 2013 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 9th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

The vehicles bearing No. KL 31 E 1962, KL 23 C 3173, KL 31 D 693 and KL 31 D 3899 were seized by the respondent/S.I. of Police alleging offence under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The main ground of challenge is that, the respondent is not having the jurisdiction or authority to effect seizure.

2. Heard both the sides.

3. The authority of the respondent to effect seizure has already been considered by this Court and the power and competence has been upheld as per the decision reported in Aloshias C. Antony Vs. Government of Kerala [2014(1) KLT 536]. The said decision was rendered, also taking note of the nature of offence which is a 'cognizable' one (notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C) as stipulated in Section 21(6) of MMDR Act, 1957 and also placing reliance on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Construction Materials Movers Association V. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 909]. In the said circumstance, there is no tenable

W.P.(C) No. 3858 of 2013 : 2 :

ground to call for interference.

4. When the matter came up for consideration on 08.02.2013, the vehicles were caused to be released, on satisfaction of a sum Rs.25,000/- each and on execution of a simple bond. In the said circumstance, the further course of action required is to surrender the vehicle before the respondent, so as to enable the respondent to produce it before the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area and to proceed with steps for prosecution, unless the offence is sought to be compounded.

5. The petitioners express desire to compound the offence by virtue of the enabling provisions under the relevant provisions of law. This Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioners to have the offence compounded on satisfying the compounding fee of Rs.25,000/-. The amount ordered to be paid as per the interim order dated 08.02.2013 shall be treated as compounding fee and offence shall be treated as compounded. Once the offence is compounded, no prosecution proceedings will lie in view of the law declared by this Court in Digil Vs. Sub Inspector of Police [2013

(1) KLT 600]. It shall be reported to the concerned Magistrate, if the crime has already been reported. If there is any failure in

W.P.(C) No. 3858 of 2013 : 3 :

satisfying the compounding fee, the respondent shall pursue further steps in connection with the prosecution before the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area. The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd