Dismissed

Abilash v. the Deputy Forest Range Officer

Kerala HC17 Nov 2020Crl.MC/4161/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the accused to quash forest offence proceedings. It held that the numerous grounds raised, including procedural defects in the seizure memo and lack of mandatory officer presence, require evidentiary adjudication by the lower courts and cannot be resolved at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition for quashing of all proceedings was dismissed.

Abilash Vs the Deputy Forest Range Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4161 OF 2020(A)

¶6

CRIME NO.6/2020 OF CHITTAR FOREST STATION OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ABILASH AGED 32 YEARS S/O.USHA, KOTTUPARATHADATHIL HOUSE, MADAMON, PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689711.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DEPUTY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, CHITTAR FOREST STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST., PIN-689663.

¶12

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

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No.4161 OF 2020(A) 2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

For quashing the entire proceedings in

¶18

O.R.NO.6/2020 of Chittar Forest Station registered under Section 27(1)(e) (iv), (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and Section 9 of Wildlife Protection Act on the file of the J.F.M.C NO.1, Ranni, the accused

¶19

No.2 came up. It is submitted that O.R. was registered on 29/07/2020, whereas accused No.1 passed away on the previous day that is 28/7/2020. It is submitted that the offence alleged will not stand, even the mahazer prepared is not in accordance with the law in force, no particular date is mentioned in the mahazar and that place of its preparation is not mentioned. It is not clear from the mahazar who had prepared it. Accused No.1

¶20

at first recorded as arrested thereafter it was

¶21

stated that he was not arrested. No authorized officer was present as mandated under Section 72

¶22

(d) of Kerala Forest Act to take evidence or to

¶23

Crl.MC.No.4161 OF 2020(A) 3

¶24

hold the enquiry. Altogether 14 grounds were

¶25

raised in the application in support of claim raised. A mere perusal of all these grounds would prima facie show that all these can be adjudicated

¶26

only after the evidence and it requires adjudication by evidence. It is well settled that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this court cannot usurp the powers of a Trial Court or an Appellate Court

¶27

or a Revisional Court. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands entirely different from the powers vested with the Trial Court, Appellate Court or Revisional Court. The matters which can

¶28

be looked into or adjudicated by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court normally will not come under the purview of Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Hence,

¶29

when there is valid defence available to the accused that may not be a sufficient reason to exhaust the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C..

¶30

Hence it is not permissible for this court to go into the grounds raised which requires adjudication by evidence. Without prejudice to the right of petitioner to agitate all these issues and to take

¶31

Crl.MC.No.4161 OF 2020(A) 4

¶32

up their defences at various stages of the proceedings, the present Crl.M.C. is hereby dismissed.

¶33

At the fag end of the argument the learned

¶34

counsel for the petitioner submitted that his party is prepared to appear before the Investigation Officer within two weeks. In that event after interrogation, he shall be produced before the

¶35

concerned Magistrate, so as to enable him to move for regular bail. The Magistrate shall consider the application without any delay, if possible on the day of filing itself.

¶36

Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

Crl.MC.No.4161 OF 2020(A) 5

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

ANNEXURE 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.R.NO.6/2020 OF CHITTAR FOREST STATION ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.M.C.NO.I, RANNI. ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.685/2020 OF CHITTAR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN WP(C) NO.16593 OF 2020.

¶45

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

P.A. TO JUDGE

Abilash v. the Deputy Forest Range Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abilash v. the Deputy Forest Range Officer

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

A.C.Joseph(Died) Vs Alikutty

Krishnakumar Vs the State of Kerala

T.P.Nandakumar Vs Central Burro of Investigation

Panamkavil Sakuntha, Vs State of Kerala

Nitheesh Vs State of Kerala and Others

Sumith P Prasad Vs State of Kerala