Disposed

Aslam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jul 2016Crl.MC/4651/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged non-production of seized vehicle and lack of opportunity to compound offence under mining transportation rules. Bombay High Court directed police to produce vehicle and allowed compounding before District Geologist within five days.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to produce seized vehicle before District Geologist within two days; District Geologist to permit compounding within five days; vehicle to be released if compounded.

Aslam Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2016/6TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4651 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------Crl.MC 3329/2016 of THIS HON'BLE COURT CRIME NO. 514/2016 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. ASLAM, S/O ASHRAF, AGED 27 YEARS, KANDATHIPARAMBIL, VENGOLA P.O., VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-24PB-5504)

¶9

2. SHANU P.H.

¶10

S/O HAMSA, AGED 25 YEARS, PERUTHIKADAN, VENGOLA P.O., VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (OWNER OF LORY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-24-B-5504)

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682101.

¶15

3. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

bp

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 4651 of 2016 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO.514/2016 DATED 20.7.2016 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.77/2015/ID DATED 5.6.2015.

¶23

ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 3.6.2016 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3329/2016.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

bp

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶29

¶30

Crl.M.C. No. 4651 of 2016

¶31

- - - - Dated 28^th July, 2016

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

1.Vehicle bearing registration No. KL-24-B-5504 belonging to the 2^nd petitioner was seized by the 2^nd respondent on 20.7.2016, alleging commission of offence under the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Transportation Rules,2015”).

¶35

2.As per Rule 32 of the Transportation Rules, 2015, any offence punishable under the said rules can be compounded, either before or after the institution of the prosecution, by the person authorized under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 or clause (ii) of Rule 2 of the Transportation Rules, 2015, to make a complaint to the Court with respect to that offence, on payment to that person, for credit to the Government, of such sum as that person may specify.

¶36

Crl.M.C. No.4651 of 2016 -2-

¶37

Referring to Annexure A2, it is submitted that the 3^rd respondent is the officer authorised to make a complaint to the Court or to compound the offence.

¶38

3.The grievance of the petitioners is that the vehicle has not been produced before the 3^rd respondent till date. The prayer in this petition is to issue direction to the 2^nd respondent to act in terms of the Transportation Rules, 2105 and to produce the vehicle seized before the 3^rd respondent. It is further prayed that directions be issued to the 3^rd respondent to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to compound the offence under Rule 32 of the Transportation Rules, 2015.

¶39

4.I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

¶40

5.I find considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel. It is evident on a reading of Rule 32 of the Transportation Rules, 2015 and also S.R.O No. 375 of 2015 produced by the petitioners that the 3^rd respondent is the competent authority to prefer complaint before the

¶41

Crl.M.C. No.4651 of 2016 -3-

¶42

learned Magistrate and also to allow the compounding of the offence. Hence, the following directions are issued, to secure the ends of justice :-

¶43

i. The 2^nd respondent is directed to produce the aforesaid vehicle involved in the offence before the 3^rd respondent within a period of two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

ii. The 3^rd respondent shall permit the petitioners to compound the offence under Rule 32 of the Rules, if the same is permissible under law.

¶45

ii. The above endeavour shall be completed within a period of 5 days from the date of receipt of this order.

¶46

If the offence is compounded in terms of Rule 32 of the Transportation Rules, 2015, necessarily the vehicle shall

¶47

be released forthwith. This petition is disposed off.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶50

kp/-28.7.16

Aslam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aslam 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

Shagen N. Vs State of Kerala

Umesh Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hameed Vs the State of Kerala

Subaida Vs State of Kerala

George Thomas Vs the State of Kerala