Allowed

Basheer M.M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jun 2017Crl.MC/60/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings alleging trespass into Government forest under Section 27(i)(e)iv of the Kerala Forest Act. The Court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings because the prosecution failed to allege that the place of occurrence was a reserved forest.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in CC No.874/2014 are quashed. This Crl.M.C. No. 60 of 2017 is allowed.

Basheer M.M. Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/6TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 60 of 2017 ()

¶6

CC 874/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHITTUR. OR NO.2/2011 OF KOLLENGODE FOREST STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 & 5:

¶8

1. BASHEER M.M., S/O.MAKKAR, AGED 45 YEARS, MATTAPPALLIKKUDI, ADIMALY PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

2. P.A.AMEER, S/O.ALIYAR, AGED 28 YEARS, PATTARUMADOM, ADIMALY PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

3. HAJA P.A., S/O.ALIYAR, AGED 32 YEARS, PATTARUMADOM, ADIMALY PO,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶11

4. MANAF P.M., S/O.MAJEED, AGED 26 YEARS, PAKITTERIYIL HOUSE, ADIMALY PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶15

2. DEPUTY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THEKKADY FOREST STATION, KOLLENKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678506.

¶16

3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KOLLENKODE FOREST RANGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678506.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

mbr/

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 60 of 2017 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEXURE A1:	CERTIFIED COPY OF NO.1.	THE OCCURRENCE REPO	RT IN FORM
ANNEXURE A2:	TRUE COPY OF THE	MAHAZER.
ANNEXURE A3:	TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST ACCUSED.	CONFESSION STATEMENT	OF
ANNEXURE A4:	TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND ACCUSED.	CONFESSION STATEMENT	OF
ANNEXURE A5:	TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD ACCUSED.	CONFESSION STATEMENT	OF
ANNEXURE A6:	TRUE COPY OF THE 4TH ACCUSED.	CONFESSION STATEMENT	OF
ANNEXURE A7:	TRUE COPY OF THE 5TH ACCUSED.	CONFESSION STATEMENT	OF
ANNEXURE A8:	TRUE COPY OF THE 6TH ACCUSED.	CONFESSION STATEMENT	OF
ANNEXURE A9:	TRUE COPY OF THE 7TH ACCUSED.	CONFESSION STATEMENT	OF
ANNEXURE A10:	CERTIFIED COPY OF	THE CHARGE SHEET.
RESPONDENTS'	ANNEXURES :	NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶28

Crl.M.C. No. 60 of 2017

¶29

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2017

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶32

2.Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 and 5 in CC No.874/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur, Palakkad. They are alleged to have committed the offence under Section 27(i)(e)iv of the Kerala Forest Act. The allegation is that they trespassed into Government forest. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that in the absence of an allegation that the place of occurrence is a reserved forest, the prosecution is invalid.

¶33

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

4.It is seen from Annexures A1 occurrence report and A10 final report that the definite case of the prosecution is that the place of occurrence is a Government forest.

¶35

Crl.M.C. No. 60 of 2017

¶36

..2..

¶37

The allegation that it is a reserved forest is conspicuously absent. In the absence of an allegation

¶38

that the place of occurrence is a reserved forest, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 27(i)(e)iv of the Kerala Forest Act.

¶39

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The proceedings in CC No.874/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur, Palakkad are quashed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶42

bka/-

Basheer M.M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basheer M.M. 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

Baiju.T.D Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Asif. M.P Vs State of Kerala

Sabeer Vs State of Kerala

Fathima Vs State of Kerala

Nirmal Kandelwal Vs State of Kerala