Allowed

Shaji K Abraham v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC6 Jan 2014WP(C)/117/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought release of a seized lorry. The Court directed the respondent to accept the petitioner's application to compound the offence under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules upon payment of Rs.25,000, holding that no further prosecution proceedings shall lie once compounded. Pending proceedings under the Kerala Police Act were remanded to the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to accept compounding application upon payment of Rs.25,000; works under Kerala Police Act remanded to Magistrate.

Shaji K Abraham Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/16TH POUSHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 117 of 2014 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SHAJI K ABRAHAM, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM ALIAS AVARACHAN, KANJIRAKKATT, VADAVUKODU P.O., VADAVUKODU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM. (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-40-G-7205).

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ SRI.A.M.ABDULLA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 680665.

¶11

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C).No. 117 of 2014 (L)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF CASH MEMORANDUM DATED 28.12.2013 ISSUED BY SAND DEALER BY NAME PATHROSE KURIAKOSE WHICH WAS COUNTER SIGNED BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶24

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 117 of 2014

¶26

¶27

Dated, this the 6^th day of January, 2014

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶30

prayers:

¶31

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to release the vehicle of the petitioner without imposing any condition.

¶32

Declare that the petitioner transported earth in his vehicle with authority and with valid P forms issued as per the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1967.

¶33

Issue such other writ or orders or directions, which this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.

¶34

The petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing No. KL 40 G

¶35

7205, whose vehicle has been seized by the respondent alleging violation of the provisions under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transporting the red earth on the strength of Ext. P1 pass issued by the dealer and the same was counter signed by the

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 117 of 2014

¶37

: 2 :

¶38

concerned Geologist. It is stated that the petitioner is ready to compound the offence.

¶39

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that apart from offence under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, offence under the provisions of the Kerala Police Act is also incorporated. As such, the request for compounding the offence is not liable to be entertained.

¶40

The primary question to be considered 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.

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 117 of 2014

¶43

: 3 :

¶44

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 is in the said circumstance, that this Court has been passing various orders in connected similar matters enabling the concerned petitioners 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.

¶45

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

¶46

2013 (1) KLT 600 ( Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police) , holding

¶47

that, once the offence is compounded, there cannot be any further prosecution proceedings.

¶48

In view of the law declared as mentioned herein before, there will be a direction to the concerned respondent to accept the application to be filed by the petitioner to compound the offence under the KMMC Rules; 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

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 117 of 2014

¶50

: 4 :

¶51

compounded, no prosecution proceedings shall lie against the petitioner, with regard to offence under the KMMC Rules.

¶52

In respect of the offence under the provisions of Kerala Police Act, it is for the petitioner to pursue the matter before the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court. It is ordered accordingly.

¶53

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶54

sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶55

kmd

¶56

W.P.(C) No. 117 of 2014

¶57

: 5 :

Shaji K Abraham v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji K Abraham v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gegee Sajeev Vs Suresh

Amrutha S.H Vs State of Kerala

Aryalakshmi Wilson Vs State of Kerala

Shaji K.Abraham Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Shymon Joseph Vs the Kerala State Public Service Commission

Anjana Krishnan Vs the State of Kerala