Unnikrishnan v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2015/2ND MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 2354 of 2015 (T) --------------------------- PETITIONER :

------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN, PAZHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAVILANGU P.O., KODUNGALUR, THRISSUR OWNER OF TIPPER BEARING NO.KL-08/AD 5929.

BY ADV. SRI.S.SHAJAHAN (ADOOR) RESPONDENT :

--------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-683 001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

WP(C).No. 2354 of 2015 (T) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 :

COPY OF THE SAID SEIZURE MAHAZAR DTD.20.1.2015 PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT.

P2 :

COPY OF THE COMPOUNDING APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

--------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE bp

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

.............................................................................. ......................................................................... Dated this the 22nd January, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KL.08-AD-5929, which has been seized by the respondent/Sub Inspector alleging violation of Rule 48K of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967th. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to compound the offence.

2. 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. 3.

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4.

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.

5.

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.

6. 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/- as the compounding fee. Once the offence is compounded, no prosecution proceedings shall lie against the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk