Partly allowed

Midhun P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2017Crl.MC/852/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition in part, quashing proceedings for theft under Section 379 IPC due to evidence of valid interstate transport, while directing the prosecution to continue on charges under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed in part quashing all further proceedings relation to offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. Further offence under MMDR Act will continue.

Midhun P Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/27TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 852 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 47/2017 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

MIDHUN P MIDHUN NIVAS, AMBILAD P.O, NIRMALAGIRI KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 701

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM

¶10

SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR SRI.ALBERT V.JOHN SMT.ROSHNI MANUEL SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST KASARAGODE DISTRICT 671 121

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RANJITH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 852 of 2017 () --------------------------

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

¶19

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO 47/2017 ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE INVOICE NO 653 DATED 16-1-17 ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE ADVANCE TAX UTILIZATION RECEIPT DATED 20-1-17 ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE ADVANCE TAX UTILIZATION RECEIPT DATED 21-1-17 ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE ANNEXURE A6 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 21-1-17 ISSUED BY COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 14-12-2009 ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NUMBER 58289/P3/2010/REVENUE DATED 11-11-2010

¶20

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 25313/2015

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

Crl. M. C. No. 852 of 2017

¶27

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2017

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioner herein is prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 379 IPC and Sections 4(1)(A) and 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957. It was alleged by the 2^nd respondent that, on 21.01.2017 the accused was found transporting sand from Karnataka in a lorry bearing Registration No. KA-19-AB-853. On interception, he ran away from the spot and the investigation is progressing.

¶30

The contention of the petitioner herein is that, the sand was being transported validity after purchasing it evidenced by Annexure A2 invoice and supporting documents regarding its interstate transportation. Learned counsel relied on Annexures A3 to A6 to substantiate it.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the vehicle had crossed the check post on 21.01.2017 at 2.42 a.m. The vehicle was intercepted on the same day at 6.45 p.m. It appears that though there is some time lag in between, the seizure was on the same day of crossing the check post. There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of

¶32

¶33

Crl. M. C. No. 852 of 2017

¶34

Annexure A2 and A3 to A6. A3 to A6 are hence only presumed to be genuine documents regarding the transportation.

¶35

In the light of the above, an offence under Section 379 IPC will not survive. Hence, the Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed to that extent. However, the prosecution for the remaining offences can continue in accordance with law.

¶36

In the result, Crl.M.C. is allowed in part quashing all further proceedings in Crime No.46/2017 of Kumbla Police Station, Kasaragod in relation to offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. with clarification that further offence under MMDR Act will continue. The petitioner will be free to compound the offence with the 2^nd respondent herein in accordance with law at the earliest and in case of composition, the vehicle and sand can be released without any delay.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶39

Midhun P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Midhun P 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

Thankappan Vs State of Kerala

Jnanesh Bangera Vs the State of Kerala

Shibu Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Rashid Vs State of Kerala

Afsal Vs State of Kerala