Disposed

Sivarajan.K v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC1 Jan 2014WP(C)/35/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to compound the offence under the MMDR Act and KMMC Rules. Relying on Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police, it directed the respondent to consider the compounding application upon satisfaction of Rs. 25,000/-.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was granted relief to compound the offence by directing the respondent to stay prosecution proceedings once the petitioner satisfies a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.

Sivarajan.K Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2014/11TH POUSHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 35 of 2014 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIVARAJAN.K, S/O. KRISHNAN, RAJBHAVAN HOUSE, KARIMULACKAL, CHARUMOOD P.O, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA-690 504.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENT:-

¶10

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, NOORANAD-690 504.

¶11

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE

¶12

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

¶13

Msd.

¶14

WP(C).No. 35 of 2014 (D)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF TIPPER LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO: KL-37-9455.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTE DATED 19-08-2011 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶19

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PERPARED BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE SEIZURE OF THE PETITIONER'S TIPPER LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO: KL-37-9455.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY\

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶26

¶27

W.P.(c) No.35 OF 2014

¶28

¶29

Dated this the 1^st day of January, 2014

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

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 [MMDR Act] and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 [KMMC Rules] is entitled to have the offence compounded in view of the desire expressed from his side in this regard.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that vehicle belonging to him bearing No.KL-37 9455 was seized by the respondent, alleging violation of the provisions under the MMDR Act. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to have the offence compounded.

¶33

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶34

Section 23A of the Act and Rule 60A of the Rules enable the parties to have the offence compounded. The question whether the prosecution proceedings could be pursued further, once the offence is compounded in accordance with the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act has already been considered and decided by this Court in 2013

¶35

W.P.(C)No.35/2014

¶36

¶37

(1) KLT 600 ( Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police) , holding that, once the offence is compounded, there cannot be any further prosecution proceedings. The directions given as per the above verdict are extracted below :

¶38

“i) In cases where compounding applications have been acted upon as per the interim orders passed by this Court and the offences have been compounded and compounding fees have been collected and vehicles have been released, it is declared that no further proceedings can be taken for confiscation of the vehicles;

¶39

ii) In cases where complaints have been filed before the Court but compounding applications have been entertained and offences have been compounded, appropriate applications will be filed before the Courts and the concerned Courts will pass appropriate orders in the matter with regard to the closure of the cases pending;

¶40

iii) In cases where compounding applications are yet to be filed by the parties concerned, it is open to them to file applications which will be dealt with by the officer concerned in accordance with law and they will be free to pass appropriate orders on it. If no applications are filed within a period of three weeks from today and if compounding is not being allowed, it is open to the concerned officers to complete the procedures as enjoined by law.”

¶41

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioner

¶42

W.P.(C)No.35/2014

¶43

¶44

is also entitled to have similar relief.

¶45

Coming to the extent of amount to be satisfied as compounding fee, 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 Rs. 25,000/ -. It was in the said circumstance, that this Court was passing various orders enabling the concerned petitioners 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.

¶46

In view of the willingness expressed from the part of the petitioner to have the offence compounded, conceding the guilt, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the petitioner to compound the offence, if the petitioner satisfies a sum of Rs. 25,000/- . It is ordered accordingly. It is made clear that once

¶47

W.P.(C)No.35/2014

¶48

¶49

the offence alleged against the petitioner is compounded, no prosecution proceedings shall be pursued against him.

¶50

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶51

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶52

sv.

Sivarajan.K v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivarajan.K v. 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

K.B. Hameed Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Kuriakose Vs the Rdo

Shibukumar Vs the Chief Secretary

Renuka Suresh Vs District Collector

Sri.K.P.Vijayakumar Vs M/S.Kerala Automobile Ltd.

Vipindas Vs Central Board of Secondary Education