Allowed

Shajira v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Feb 2012Crl.MC/330/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint alleging reclamation of paddy land. The Court held that as the land was not notified on the date of the alleged act, no offense was committed, and allowing proceedings would result in an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed and all further proceedings in pursuance to Annexure A3 complaint were quashed.

Shajira Vs the State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/9TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 330 of 2012 (A)

¶6

CC.56/2011 of C.J.M.,MANJERI OS.345/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHAJIRA D/O.KUNHAYIN, 29 YEARS, ULIYATH HOUSE TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

¶9

COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

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

¶11

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TIRUR.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

amk

¶15

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.M.C.No. 330 OF 2012

¶18

-------------------------Dated this the 28^th day of February, 2012.

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

In this petition under Section 482 of the

¶21

Code of Criminal procedure, the petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.56/2011 seeks an order to quash Annexure A3 complaint filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri alleging offence under Section 23 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 with a plea that the land alleged to have been filled up by the petitioner is not a notified paddy land or wet land as alleged in the complaint.

¶22

The learned Govt. Pleader would submit that as on the date of alleged occurrence, it was not a notified land and that the notification in that regard was published only subsequent to the alleged occurrence. In the above circumstance, I find that as on the date of the reclamation, the property in dispute was not a notified

¶23

Crl.M.C.No. 330 OF 2012 2

¶24

paddy land or wet land. Therefore, as on the date of reclamation, there is no contravention of any of the penal provisions so as to prosecute the petitioner. It is well settled that the penal provisions in a legislation would not have any retrospective effect. Whether an act or omission is penal or not is to be determined with reference to the prevailing law as on the date of action or omission. That being the settled legal position, I find that all further proceedings in pursuance to Annexure A3 complaint are liable to be quashed or else the result would be abuse of process.

¶25

In the result, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings in pursuance to Annexure A3 would stand quashed.

¶26

P.S.GOPINATHAN,

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

amk

Shajira v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajira v. the State of Kerala

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

Nissam Vs State of Kerala

Ayyappadas Vs State of Kerala

Shamshad Vs the State of Kerala

Sreeraj Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Usman Vs Muhammed Sheref

K.Shankara Vs State of Kerala