Allowed

Muhammed M.K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2017Crl.MC/862/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings for theft of sand and violation of the Sand Act against the accused, finding valid purchase and transport documents. It allowed the crl.M.C. but directed that proceedings under the MMDR Act may proceed separately.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed; prosecution for theft and Sand Act violations quashed; MMDR Act proceedings left to competent authority.

Muhammed M.K. 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/1ST PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 862 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 34/2017 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION , KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED AND OWNER OF THE VEHICLE:

¶8

1. MUHAMMED M.K. S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KARMAMTHODY HOUSE, KASARAGOD PO, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. NAWAZ ASHRAF S/O.MOHAMMED, PANELA HOUSE, PAJIR POST, BENTWAL, KARNATAKA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB E SIMON

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE GEOLOGIST

¶14

DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, E-BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION VIDYA NAGAR, KASARAGOD, PIN-671 123.

¶15

3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶16

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI T R RANJITH

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 862 of 2017 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

ANNEXURE A : A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.34/2017 OF KASARGOD POLICE STATION.

¶22

ANNEXURE B : A TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE ISSUED BY THE M/S.SARALA TRADING DATED 8-1-2017.

¶23

ANNEXURE C : A TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE ISSUED ON 13-12017.

¶24

ANNEXURE D : A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVANCE TAX UTILIZATION RECEIPT DATED 13-1-2017.

¶25

ANNEXURE E : A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE REGARDING THE VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION DETAILS OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KA-19-AB-3305 ON 14-01-2017.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶27

True Copy / P A to Judge

¶28

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶29

=================

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.862 of 2017

¶31

=================

¶32

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2017

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The first accused is arrayed as the accused in Crime No.34 of 2017 of Kasaragod Police Station for offences punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Bank and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. The second accused is the owner of the vehicle who is not arrayed as the accused.

¶35

It is alleged that on 14.01.2017 at 6.10p.m, the first accused was found transporting river sand in a lorry bearing registration No.KA-19-AB-3305 owned by the second petitioner herein. Crime was registered thereupon.

¶36

Petitioners have approached this Court contending that the item was validly purchased by him evidenced by Annexure-B supported by valid documents produced as Annexures-C to E. Hence, it was contended that the offence under section 379 IPC as well as under the Sand Act would not lie. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the vehicle crossed the check post on 13.01.2017 at 14.24a.m. It seems that Annexure-E shows that the vehicle had a valid certificate relating to advance tax evidenced by VCR No.5585/2.27 hrs dated 14.01.2017. However,

¶37

Crl.M.C.862/17

¶38

¶39

Annexure-D indicates that the advance tax was paid on 13.01.2017 at 7.33p.m. expecting the vehicle on the same day itself. Necessarily, crossing of the vehicle can only be after 13.01.2017 at 7.33p.m.

¶40

Viewing from this angle, there does not appear to be much time lag with the interception of the vehicle, which is on 14.01.2017 at 18.10hrs. Having regard to this, I am inclined to hold that the petitioners had purchased the sand evidenced by valid document and it was being transported with supporting documents. Hence, the provisions under section 379IPC as well as the Sand Act would not survive. Hence the prosecution for above offences is liable to be quashed. Crl.M.C is allowed to the above extent.

¶41

However, the proceedings under MMDR Act can proceed, if the competent authority so decides. In such event, the petitioner will be entitled to compound in accordance with law. Thereupon, vehicle with sand may be released at the earliest in accordance with the decision of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1889 of 2015 with appropriate modifications.

¶42

Accordingly, Crl.M.C. is allowed.

¶43

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶44

Sbna/20/2/17

¶45

True Copy / P A to Judge

Muhammed M.K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed M.K. 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

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Shahabas Mohammed Vs the Senior Intelligence Officer

Mohammed Jabir Vs State of Kerala

Murali C.P Vs State of Kerala

Junaid.N Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Vs State of Kerala