Partly allowed

Shaji K.Abraham v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC6 Jan 2014WP(C)/153/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application to compound an offence under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The Court ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000 as a compounding fee and held that no further prosecution could lie once compounded. Offences under the Kerala Police Act were left for proceedings before a Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to accept compounding application subject to payment of Rs. 25,000; direction that no prosecution lies for Rules offence after compounding.

Shaji K.Abraham Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | 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. 153 of 2014 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:-

¶7

SHAJI K.ABRAHAM, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. ABRAHAM ALIAS AVARACHAN, KANJIRAKKATT, VADAVUKODU.P.O., VADAVUKODU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM . (OWNER CUM DRIVER OF LORRYBEARING RFEGISTRATION NO. KL-40-F-383)

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶9

RESPONDENT:-

¶10

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANAGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-680 665.

¶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

KKS

¶14

WP(C).No. 153 of 2014 (T)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28-12-2013 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

KKS

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶23

¶24

W.P.(C) No. 153 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶28

prayers:

¶29

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to receive and consider Ext.P2 request and thereby give an opportunity to the petitioner for compounding alleged offence under Section 60 (A) (1) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1967.

¶30

Direct the respondent to release the lorry to the petitioner after compounding the offence.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

383, 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 is ready to compound the offence as sought for vide Ext. P1.

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 153 Of 2014

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

Section 23A of the 'Act and Rule 60A of the Rules

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 153 Of 2014

¶42

: 3 :

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 153 Of 2014

¶48

: 4 :

¶49

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.

¶50

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶51

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

¶52

kmd

¶53

W.P.(C) No. 153 Of 2014

¶54

: 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