Disposed

Dr.N.R.Kannan v. Deputy Ranger Forest Department

Kerala HC10 Mar 2008Crl.MC/937/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a college principal, challenged criminal proceedings alleging sandalwood tree uprooting under the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth Act. The court refused to quash the occurrence report as investigation was inconclusive and no charge sheet was filed.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed with reservation of right to approach appropriate forum if charge sheet is filed.

Dr.N.R.Kannan Vs Deputy Ranger Forest Department — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶3

MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 937 of 2008()

¶5

¶6

AGAINST O.R.NO.3 OF 2007 OF PONGANANAGAD FOREST STATION, THRISSUR PENDING BEFORE THE J.F.C.M- III, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

DR.N.R.KANNAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.RAMANUJA THATHACHARYA, FORMER PRINCIPLE RASTREEYA SAMSKRITHA SAMSTHAN, DEEMED UNIVERSITIES GURUVAYOOR CAMPUS, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR. PRESENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPLE LUCKNOW CAMPUS.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR SMT.ANITHA MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

¶13

DEPUTY RANGER FOREST DEPARTMENT, PONGANANAGAD FOREST STATION, THRISSUR.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.937 of 2008

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2008

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner, while working as the Principal of the Guruvayoor Campus College of Rashtreeya Samskritha Samsthan Deemed University, Puranattukara, was arrayed as the accused in O.R.No.3 of 2007 of Ponganangadu Forest Station for an offence punishable under Sections 4 and 7 of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non Forest Areas Act, 2005.

¶22

The allegation against the petitioner is that on a search conducted in the compound of the College on 5.9.07, the Forest officers seized four pieces of sandal wood from the rear side of the library compound and two pieces of sandal wood from the servant's quarters attached to the quarters of the Principal. The sandal wood in question is alleged to be portions of the sandal wood tree uprooted from the college campus.

¶23

According to the petitioner he has been falsely implicated at the instance of one Krishna Kumar who had an axe to grind against the petitioner for not obliging him in the past The petitioner would further allege that the tree register of the

¶24

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.937 of 2008

¶26

college will show that there was no sandal wood tree in the college campus and that the CPWD while cutting a trench in the college campus for laying pipe line had uprooted certain trees which were not sandal wood trees.

¶27

The case is still at the crime stage and it is too early to quash Annexure A4, Occurrence Report. In fact the learned Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner had after a perusal of the case diary observed that it is doubtful whether the Principal ( the petitioner herein) had any role to play in the alleged occurrence. The investigation has not resulted in a final report, which can either be a refer report or a charge sheet. In case the petitioner is charge sheeted by the Forest Officers, then only it could be said that there is formal accusation against him. Now it is only in the realm of allegations and unless and until those allegations are proved by legal evidence, the petitioner cannot be found guilty. As matters now stand there is not even a charge sheet against the petitioner. In case the petitioner is charge sheeted by the Forest Department and in case the allegations in the charge sheet do not make out any offence alleged but on the contrary, those allegations are

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.937 of 2008

¶29

¶30

made only due to other extraneous reasons, the petitioner can very well approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances.

¶31

Reserving the above right of the petitioner, this Crl.M.C is disposed of.

¶32

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶33

Dr.N.R.Kannan v. Deputy Ranger Forest Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.N.R.Kannan v. Deputy Ranger Forest Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Abraham Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Sankarankutty and Others Vs K.P.Ammalukutty Amma and Another

Vineesh & Others Vs State of Kerala & Another

Vijayaprasad Vs Sub Inspector of Police

E.v.Vinoop Kumar Vs S.I. of Police and Another

V.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs Thara Pradeep