JASMON Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs;

(2.) Writ petitioners are accused in O.R No.05/2021 of Peruvannamuzhi Forest Station registered by the 2nd respondent for offences punishable under Ss. 47B, 47C, 47E, 47G and 47H of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (For short, 'the Act'). The allegation against them was that on 22/9/2021, they were found in possession of 54.3 Kgms of sandal wood, tools and instruments for cutting sandal woods in a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL56C-441. All the above offences are compoundable under Sec. 68 of the Act and thereupon, petitioners filed a compounding petition before the 1st respondent on 26/11/2021, copy of which petition and the postal receipt evidencing the forwarding of the above petition before the 1st respondent are also produced alongwith as Exts.P1 and P1(a). Vide judgment dtd. 13/12/2021, this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 within a time frame, true copy of which judgment is produced alongwith as Ext.P2. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2, the 1st respondent recorded in it's order passed on 19/1/2022 that the accused did not appear personally on 14/1/2021 but were represented by counsel who laid vakalth for them. It was further recorded that a report of the Investigating Officer is very much essential for compounding the offences and therefore, it was called for from him. It was informed by the Investigating Officer that the accused are not traceable after dismissal of their bail application and therefore they were not interrogated. According to them, therefore a reasonable conclusion on compounding could not be arrived at and accordingly the compounding application was not considered. The true copy of the order dtd. 19/1/2022 passed by the 1st respondent, referred to above is appended to as Ext.P3. In the aforesaid circumstances that the writ petition is filed seeking for the above reliefs.

(3.) Going by Ext.P3 order under challenge, it is found that the application seeking for compounding was rejected by the 1st respondent, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kozhikode and the petitioners were directed to appear before the Investigating Officer for further interrogation. Sec. 68 of the Act being apposite in the context is extracted hereunder;