STATE OF KERALA Vs. RAHUL T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment in W.P.(C)No.22680 of 2019 dated 18.12.2019, instant writ appeal is filed.

(2.) Short facts leading to the writ petition are that, writ petitioners (respondents herein) are accused in O.R.No.2 of 2017 filed under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) and 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. After investigation, a final report has been filed by the Range Officer, Kottiyoor Forest Range, Kannur (second respondent) and the case is now pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kuthuparamba. Ext.P3 is the final report in the case. The allegations against the petitioners are that they have trespassed into the forest and removed a fallen tree in the category of "Xylia Xylo Corpa", after cutting the same into pieces using a saw, and thereby caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.900/-. The offence alleged against the petitioners being an offence which could be compounded under Section 68 of the Kerala Forest Act, petitioners have preferred an application before the competent authority for compounding the offence alleged against them. The application was rejected on the ground that the same cannot be considered when the case is pending trial before the competent court. Ext.P4 is the order issued by the competent authority. Ext.P4 has been challenged by the petitioners before this Court in Crl.M.C.No.2483 of 2019. In terms of Ext.P5 order, this Court set aside Ext.P4 order and directed the competent authority to consider the application afresh, holding that the pendency of the case before the criminal court is not a bar in the matter of considering the application for compounding. Thereupon, the competent authority has passed Ext.P7 order rejecting the request made by the petitioners again, holding that as the offences alleged against them are of serious nature, the request cannot be considered. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) Writ court, after considering the rival submissions and taking note of the decisions in Mathew v. State of Kerala reported in 2011 (3) KLT 1 and State of Jharkhand and Another v. Govind Singh reported in (2005) 10 SCC 437, allowed the writ petition as hereunder: