Allowed

Pankajam .P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Mar 2023Crl.MC/363/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash a final report and all further proceedings under a calendar case. The court quashed proceedings against a government servant for lack of Section 197 Cr.P.C. sanction and dismissed proceedings against a non-government labour aggregator due to absence of mens rea and lack of independent culpability.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed; the final report and all further proceedings in the connected Calendar Case were quashed.

Pankajam .P Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 363 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 59/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II (FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶8

1 PANKAJAM .P, AGED 59 YEARS W/O JAGANNIVASAN PADEERI HOUSE KALADI PO EDAPPAL MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679582

¶9

2 AFDUL SALAM, AGED 58 YEARS S/O MUHAMMEDUNNI ILLIKATH VALAPPIL VEEDU ALANKODE PO MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679585

¶10

BY ADVS. JAMSHEED HAFIZ K.K.NESNA T.S.SREEKUTTY

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY ( FOREST AND WILDLIFE ) GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001

¶13

2 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (SOUTH) NILAMBUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679329

¶14

3 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER KALIKAVU RANGE WANDOOR MALAPPURAM DISRICT REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR FOREST HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SPL.GP FORESTS ARAVIND V. MATHEW

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2023, THE COURT ON 06.03.2023 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.363/2023

ORDER

Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2023

¶22

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in O.R. No. 11 of 2018 of Kalikavu Forest Range in Malappuram District. The Crime and Occurrence Report was registered on the allegation that, at the request of the first accused, Village Officer, Alangode Village, the third accused/Tahsildar, Ponnani gave permission for cutting the branches of trees standing in the Village Office premises and on the process nests and eggs of birds were destroyed and death occurred to the hatchlings of Little Cormorant (Neer kakka) and Pond Heron (kokku) falling under schedule IV of the Kerala Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. By their acts, the accused committed offences under Sections 2(1), 2(16), 9, 39, 50 and 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. After investigation, Annexure-I final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Forest Offences), Manjeri and the case taken on file as C.C. No. 59 of 2019. This Crl. M.C. is filed seeking to quash the final report and further proceedings in the Calendar Case.

¶23

Crl.M.C.363/2023

¶24

¶25

Heard, Adv. Jamsheed Hafiz for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor Adv. Aravind V. Mathew for the respondents.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the first accused being a Government servant, further proceedings in C.C. 59 of 2019 is liable to be quashed since cognizance of the offences was taken without obtaining prior sanction mandated under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that, finding force in the contention, criminal proceedings against the third accused/ Tahsildar was quashed by this Court as per Annexure 2 order in Crl.M.C. No. 270 of 2021. It is contended that, even on admitted facts, no offence is made out against the second respondent, the only allegation against him being that he had procured the labourers for cutting down the branches.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, since the second accused is not a public servant, he will not get the benefit of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and no valid ground is made out for quashing the criminal proceedings against him.

¶28

Crl.M.C.363/2023

¶29

¶30

The contention that further proceedings against the first accused will amount to an abuse of process, can only be upheld, since the fact cognizance was taken without obtaining sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not in dispute. Moreover, the criminal proceedings against the third accused was quashed on that ground.

¶31

As far as the criminal proceedings against the second accused is concerned, a perusal of the final report reveals that the only role attributed to him is of having procured three migrant labourers for cutting the branches, on the direction of the first accused. The prosecution does not also have a case that the second accused had collected any remuneration for the service rendered by him. Being so, no mens rea can be attributed to the second accused in having made available the service of some labourers carrying out the work. Apart from all that, as the second accused had acted on the dictates of the first accused, no purpose will be served by the criminal proceedings against him alone being continued.

¶32

For the aforementioned reasons the Crl.M.c. is allowed. The final report in O.R. No.11 of 2018 of Kalikavu Forest

¶33

Crl.M.C.363/2023

¶34

¶35

Range and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 59 of 2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Forest Offences),

Manjeri are quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

Crl.M.C.363/2023

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 363/2023

¶44

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶45

Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN OR. 11/ 2018 OF KALIKAVU FOREST RANGE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DATED 09.09.2018 Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC NO. 270/2021 DATED 09.12.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

Pankajam .P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankajam .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

Mohammed Nihas C.C. Vs Beena

Dr. Chikku Abraham Vs L. Beena

Sudha K.P. Vs Jaithunnisa R.K.

Riyas Ali.M Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran, Vs the State of Kerala

The District Magistrate Vs Shiju P v