Partly allowed

Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Nov 2016Crl.MC/5737/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Court held that prosecution under Section 379 IPC and the Kerala Sand Act cannot be sustained as the seized sand was imported from Orissa. However, proceedings may continue under the MMDR Act, 1957, with an option to compound the offence.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution under IPC Section 379 and Kerala Sand Act quashed. Petitioners liable to proceed under MMDR Act. Vehicle returned if offence compounded within 5 days by paying specified amount to District

Abdul Rasheed Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/16TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5737 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 472/2016 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. ABDUL RASHEED

¶9

AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, KAKKINJE HOUSE, P.O.KAKKINJE, BELTANGADI.

¶10

2. OBBY ABRAHAM

¶11

AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. M.O.ABRAHAM, IRIS APARTMENT, FLAT NO.108, NEW ROAD, 2ND CROSS, BEJAI, MANGALURU.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANJESWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 323.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 5737 of 2016 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, MANGALORE.

¶22

ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE FIR NO.472 OF 2016 DATED 18.8.2016 OF MANJESWARAM POLICE STATION.

¶23

ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.A10/6026/15 DATED 18.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, ANCHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶24

ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KVAT ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ANCHAL, DATED 15.12.2015.

¶25

ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION NO.21133001204 DATED 7.1.2016.

¶26

ANNEXURE A6 COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.161/09/ID DATED 14.12.2009. ANNEXURE A7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.31958 OF 2015 DATED 30.10.2015 AND CONNECTED CASES. ANNEXURE A8 COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.3775 DATED 15.8.2016. ANNEXURE A9 COPY OF THE WAY-BILL. ANNEXURE A10 COPY OF THE ADVANCE TAX UTILIZATION RECEIPT DATED 18.8.2016.

¶27

ANNEXURE A11 COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE ISSUED AT THE COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST AT MANJESWARAM.

¶28

ANNEXURE A12 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE VIDE NO.A2-11/16 DATED 20.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MANJESWARAM.

¶29

ANNEXURE A13 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23.8.2016 IN CRL.MC NO.5557/2016.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶35

Crl.M.C. No.5737 of 2016

¶36

Dated 7^th November, 2016

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

~~~~~~~~

¶39

1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶40

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in

¶41

Crime No.472 of 2016 of Manjeswaram Police Station registered for offences punishable under Section 379 of the IPC and under Sections 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 18 of 2001”).

¶42

3.The prosecution allegation is that, on 18.08.2016, the Sub Inspector of Police, Manjeswaram Police Station intercepted the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-19-AB-0030 driven by the 1^st petitioner and on inspection, the vehicle

¶43

Crl.M.C.5737/2016

¶44

¶45

was found loaded with sand. Under the strong premise that what was being transported was river sand, illegally removed from some river in the State of Kerala, violating the provisions of Act 18 of 2001, the vehicle as well the sand was seized and Annexure-A2 FIR was registered as aforesaid.

¶46

4.This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance of proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process.

¶47

5.I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶48

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that due to the scarcity of construction grade sand in the State of Kerala, the Government has taken a policy decision to encourage the import of sand from other States as well as from other Countries. This was done in

¶49

Crl.M.C.5737/2016 3

¶50

public interest considering the huge requirement of sand in the State of Kerala. It was in accordance with the

¶51

orders issued by the Government that the petitioner had imported sand from the State of Orissa. Reference is made to Annexure A3 licence issued by the Secretary, Anchal Grama Panchayath, Annexure A4 Certificate of registration of KVAT issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Anchal, A5 Certificate of registration, Annexure-A8 Invoice, Annexure-A9 way-bill, Annexure-A10 Advance Tax Utilisation Receipt , Annexure-A11 Delivery Note and Annexure-A12 Certificate issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Manjeswaram to contend that what was seized from the vehicle of the 2^nd petitioner was not river sand removed from the rivers flowing in the State of Kerala but sand imported from the State of Orissa. In view of the above, the initiation of prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of court, is the submission.

¶52

7.The learned counsel would then rely on the judgment in

¶53

Crl.M.C.5737/2016

¶54

¶55

Prakash Nayak v. District Collector, Kasaragod and

¶56

Others [2016(40 KHC 915] to contend that a Full Bench of this Court has conclusively held that sand or even river sand brought to the State of Kerala from other States, on licit or illicit export, cannot be governed by the Sand Act in Kerala. According to the learned counsel, in view of the said decision, the Crime registered under Section 379 of the IPC and under the various provisions of the Act 18 of 2001 can only be quashed.

¶57

8.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor relying on the case of Prakash Nayak (supra) would contend that even if provisions under Act 18 of 2001 is not attracted, prosecution is perfectly possible under the MMDR Act and the rules framed thereunder. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners have not produced any mineral transit pass issued by the competent authority in the State of Orissa which in other words would reveal that the sand was not licit. It is

¶58

Crl.M.C.5737/2016 5

¶59

submitted that the Full Bench has held that the prosecution procedure including seizure and arrest as provided under the MMDR Act, 1957 will have to be followed in such circumstances. However, the learned Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that the Commercial Tax Officer (Admn) after verification of the Kerala Value Added Tax Information System (KVATIS) and vehicle checking register maintained in the commercial tax check post, Bangara has intimated that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-19-AB-0030 had crossed the check post prior to the seizure. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that steps have been taken for altering the Section by including the penal provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957.

¶60

9.I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials on record.

¶61

10.Since the documents produced by the petitioners and

¶62

Crl.M.C.5737/2016

¶63

¶64

also the information received from the commercial tax authorities reveals that the sand found in the vehicle was imported from the State of Orissa, the prosecution of the petitioners under Section 379 of the IPC and under Section 20 of Act 18 of 2001 cannot be sustained.

¶65

11.However, the petitioners have not produced any mineral transit pass issued by the competent authority in the State from where the sand was exported on payment of royalty and other charges. In view of the above, and as held by the Full Bench in Prakash Nayak (supra), there is no embargo in dealing with the case under the MMDR Act, 1957 and proceedings including seizure, confiscation and prosecution can be initiated under the provisions of the said Act. Hence, though the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 379 of the IPC and under Section 20 of Act 18 of 2001 cannot be sustained in the eye of law, Annexure-A2 FIR cannot be quashed as such. The petitioners are liable to be proceeded under Section 21 of

¶66

Crl.M.C.5737/2016

¶67

¶68

the MMDR Act, 1957 as has been held in Prakash Nayak

¶69

(supra).

¶70

12.In the result, this petition is disposed of as follows:

¶71

(i) Prosecution of the petitioners under Section 379 of the IPC and under Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Sand and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 cannot be sustained and the same is quashed.

¶72

(b) However, the petitioners is liable to be proceeded against under the relevant provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

¶73

(c) If the police officer who has seized the vehicle has not so far reported the fact of seizure, he shall immediately report the fact of seizure to the court having jurisdiction. The court having jurisdiction shall be empowered to pass appropriate orders as regards the sand and the vehicle involved in the cases. If application for interim custody is filed, the same shall also be dealt with by the learned Magistrate expeditiously.

¶74

(d) Alternatively, since the prosecution is being carried on under the MMDR Act, 1957, the offence punishable under the said Act is compoundable either before or after the institution of the prosecution under Section 23A of the MMDR Act, 1957.

¶75

Crl.M.C.5737/2016

¶76

¶77

(e) If the petitioners are prepared to compound the offence, the 2^nd respondent is directed to produce the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-19-AB-0030 before the District Geologist, Kasaragode within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶78

(f)The District Geologist, Kasaragod shall permit the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 23A of the MMDR Act on payment to that person, for credit to the Government, such sum as the said authority may specify.

¶79

(g)The above endeavour shall be completed within a period of 5 days from the date of filing of application seeking composition before the District Geologist, Kasaragod. The petitioners shall pay the amount directly before the District Geologist concerned and certificate to that effect shall be produced before the 2^nd respondent who shall release the vehicle as well as the sand.

¶80

Petition is disposed of.

¶81

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶82

kp/8.11.16

Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rasheed 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thankamma Vs State of Kerala

Bhamakumari Amma Vs State of Kerala

Shihab Vs State of Kerala

Savithri Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Vivek Vs State of Kerala

Kalader Vs State of Kerala