High Court of KeralaWP(C)/8412/2015disposed of

Dileep v. The S.I. Of Police, Angamaly Police Station

2015-03-20Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/29TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8412 of 2015 (B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :

------------------------ DILEEP, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, KOOVAPARAMBIL, NEELEESWARAM P.O, KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-40-B-3592). BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S) :

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

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682 511.

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682 511.

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

WP(C).No. 8412 of 2015 (B) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- NIL RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

-------------------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 8412 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL40-B-3592, which was seized by the squad of 2nd respondent alleging illegal transportation of 'Ordinary earth' in contravention of the relevant provisions of the 'MMDR Act, 1957'/'KMMC Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would like to have the offence compounded and that the above mentioned vehicle might be caused to be released after accepting the compounding fee.

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, 2015 is entitled to have the offence compounded in view of the desire expressed from the part of the petitioner in this regard. 3.

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4.

Section 23A of the 'Act' and the relevant Rules enable the parties to have the offence compounded. The Rules

WP(c). No.8412 of 2015 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' by virtue of the incorporation of Section 4(1A), for which separate penalty is provided under the 'Act' itself. It was in the said circumstance, that this Court has passed orders enabling the parties to have interim custody of the vehicle, on satisfaction of a sum of Rs.25,000/-, also directing the concerned respondent to consider the application for compounding, if any.

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 willingness expressed from the part of the petitioner to have the offence compounded, conceding the

WP(c). No.8412 of 2015 guilt, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the respondent to compound the offence, if the petitioner files an application and satisfies a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compounding fee. It is ordered accordingly. On satisfaction of the compounding fee, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. It is made clear that once the offence alleged against the petitioner is compounded, no prosecution proceedings shall be pursued against him.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further steps. Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.