Allowed

Ummer Farooque v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2016Crl.MC/2372/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings alleging illegal river sand transport. Relying on an analytical report showing ordinary sand and a compounding order under the MMDR Act, the court held that the Sand Act does not apply and proceedings cannot continue.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 1468 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod, were quashed.

Ummer Farooque Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2016/24TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2372 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC. NO.1468/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD. FIR NO. 29/2015 OF BEDAKAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. UMMER FAROOQUE, S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 23 YEARS, KALLAKKUTTY ANJAM MILE, KOLATHUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. ABOOBACKER T.H., S/O. MUHAMMED T.H., AGED 32 YEARS, KALARIYADKAM HOUSE, KUNDAMKUZHI P.O., BEDAKAM VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR.

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BEDAKAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 324, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 2372 of 2016

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶19

ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.29/2015 OF BEDAKAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.29/2015 OF BEDAKAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ANALYTICAL REPORT DATED 19.08.2015 OF THE CHEMICAL LAB, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE A4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD IN K.DIS.866/15/A DATED 06.10.2015. ANNEXURE A5 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DATED 05.10.2015 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF FINE.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs. S

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.M.C. No.2372 of 2016

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2016

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

1.On 21.1.2015 a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-14-J7443 owned by the 2^nd petitioner and driven by the 1^st petitioner was seized on the allegation that River sand was being illegally transported. Crime No.29 of 2015 of Bedakam Police Station was registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under section 379 read with 34 of the IPC and section 20 and 21 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (“Sand Act, 2001” for brevity). 2.The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the strength of Annexure A3 and A4. The learned counsel submits that the assumption that River sand was transported is belied by Annexure-A3 report. It is also submitted that the

¶31

Crl.M.C.2372/2016 2

¶32

offence was compounded, as is evident from AnnexureA4.

¶33

I have heard the Public Prosecutor as well.

¶34

4.Annexure-A3 issued by the senior Chemist of the Directorate of Mining and Geology would reveal that the sand which was seized was ordinary sand (sand excavated from places other than stream). In view of the above, the provisions of the Sand Act, 2001 will not be attracted. It is also borne out from Annexure-A4 proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod that a case was registered against the petitioners under the MMDR Act and the offence was compounded on paying a fee of Rs. 25,000/-. By virtue of Section 23 A (2) of the MMDR Act, 1957, once offence is compounded under sub-section (1), no proceeding shall be taken against the offender in respect of the offence so compounded.

¶35

5.I am of the view that the continuance of proceedings as against the petitioners cannot be justified.

¶36

Crl.M.C.2372/2016

¶37

¶38

6.In the result, this petition is allowed. All further

¶39

proceedings as against the petitioners in C.C.No.1468 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class

¶40

Court, Kasaragod, are quashed.

¶41

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶42

vps

Ummer Farooque v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummer Farooque v. 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

Saj Vs State of Kerala

Minu Antony Vs State of Kerala

Dineshan.K.K Vs State of Kerala

Kochucherukkan Vs State of Kerala

Santhoshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Reji @ Viswan Vs State of Kerala