MATHEW N J Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Could an Officer empowered under Section 68 of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, "the Act") compound an offence (other than offence under Secs.62 and 65 of the Act) when the case is pending before the criminal court What is the effect of such composition on the pending case These questions are urged for a decision in this proceeding initiated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code").

(2.) Petitioner is accused in O.R. No.1 of 2009 of Forest Range Office, Kanhangad and C.C. No.245 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg for offences punishable under Sec.27(1) (e) (iii) and (iv) of the Act. Case against petitioner is that he trespassed into the reserve forest, cut and removed 17 bamboo poles and caused loss of Rs. 500/- to the State Government. Petitioner moved an application before the Divisional Forest Officer, Kannur (for short, "the DFO") to compound the offence as provided under Sec.68 of the Act. That application was rejected by the DFO vide Annexure-A4, order dated 14.06.2010 for the reason that since final report is filed and the case is pending before court, request for compounding cannot be entertained. Annexure-A4 is under challenge.

(3.) It is argued by the learned counsel that power under Sec.68 of the Act for compounding the offences other than one under Sec.62 or 65 of the Act is equivalent to the power of Abkari Officer under Sec.67 of the Abkari Act as it stood prior to Amendment Act 16 of 1997. According to the learned counsel, the view taken by the DFO that since the case is pending consideration before court he has no authority to compound the offence is unsustainable.Learned counsel contends that the wordings of Sec.68 of the Act are clear enough to indicate that even when the case is pending in court, the Officer authorised under Sec.68 of the Act has power to compound the offence and on such composition the court has to discharge the accused.