Allowed

B.R. Sasidharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2023Crl.MC/3360/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the quashing petition filed by a petitioner who was the first accused in a cattle-related case under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The court held that there was no material to connect the petitioner with the offence.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case along with all further proceedings in the connected Case against the petitioner are quashed.

B.R. Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3360 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 386/2011 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS ,THALIPARAMBA

¶7

PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED:

¶8

B.R. SASIDHARAN

¶9

BRAHMANI HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 026

¶10

BY ADV SRI.M.G.JEEVAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

THROUGH THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THALIPARAMBA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K. SPL. G.P. FOREST

¶16

SR.PP.RENJITH GEORGE

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.M.C No. .3360 of 2014

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2023

¶22

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in C.C. No.386 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba. The case originated from O.R. No.31 of 2008 registered at the Thaliparamba Forest Range, alleging commission of offences under Sections 64(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Rule 2(h), 4, 8 and 10 of Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2003.

¶23

The prosecution allegation is as follows:

¶24

The 3^rd accused transported an elephant belonging to

¶25

him from Bihar to Kannur and had transferred its ownership to the petitioner, who in turn handed it over to a former Chief Minister of Karnataka. The former Chief Minister donated the elephant to the Sree Raja Rajeswara Temple, Thaliparamba, Kannur. The other accused are the Executive Officer of Sree Raja Rajeswara Temple and the owner of the elephant, who had brought it down from Bihar to Kerala.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there

¶27

¶28

Crl.M.C No. .3360 of 2014

¶29

are no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences. It is pointed out that further proceedings against the 2^nd accused was quashed by this Court as per Annexure A2 order. It is contended that the provisions of the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules is not attracted as against the petitioner is concerned. The 3^rd accused had transported the elephant under valid permit, as evidenced by Annexures A3 and A4. Except an unsubstantiated allegation, there is nothing to show that the ownership of the elephant was transferred in the petitioner’s name.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences under Section 40(2) of the Wild Life (Protection Act) are attracted, since the elephant was sold/transferred without obtaining permission from the Chief Wildlife Warden or the authorized officer.

¶31

Although I find some merit in the contention that Section 40(2) of the Act, 1972 may apply, there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. The petitioner is implicated based on a statement that the 3^rd accused had handed over the elephant to the petitioner without proper documents and on

¶32

¶33

Crl.M.C No. .3360 of 2014

¶34

05.11.2008, the former Chief Minister of Karnataka donated the elephant to Sree Raja Rajeswara Temple. The undisputed fact is that the elephant was donated to temple by a former Chief Minister. Surprisingly, that person is not made an accused.

¶35

In Annexure A2 order, this Court has already found that the crime was registered in a hasty manner, since the next day of donation ie; 06.11.2008, the Veterinary Officer issued a certificate stating that the elephant was being taken care of in the manner mandated under the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules.

¶36

The person who donated the elephant not being an accused and proceedings against the person who had accepted the elephant having been quashed, continuation of criminal prosecution against the petitioner will be an abuse of process.

¶37

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C. No.386 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba, as against the petitioner, is quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

smm

Crl.M.C No. .3360 of 2014

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3360/2014

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

ANNEX A1- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE
SAHEET IN C.C NO. 386/11 OIN THE FILE
OF JFCM COURT, THALIPARAMBA
ANNEX A2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
08.12.2011 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA IN CRL M.C NO. 3677 OF 2011
ANNEX A3-OWNER SHIP CERTIFICATE DATED
08.06,2004 ISSUED TO THE THIRD ACCUSED
BY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST JORHAT,
BIHAR.
ANNEX A4-THE PERMISSION FOR TRANSPORT
THE ELEPHANT DT. 20.10.06 ISSUED BY
THE CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN, BIHAR TO
THIRD ACCUSED.

B.R. Sasidharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.R. Sasidharan 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

Baby @ Philip Vs State of Kerala

B.Narayani Amma @ Omana Amma Vs Chathoth Ammad

T.Balakrishnan Vs Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau

Joshiba Bonafaise Vs State of Kerala

Viruthulli Muhammed Rafi Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs Manoj.P