STATE OF KERALA Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State against the order passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Peermade dismissing a complaint under S. 203 Cr. P. C. The respondents were prosecuted by the Forest range Officer of Erumely for offences under S. 27 (d), (e) and (f) of the travancore-Cochin Forest Act, 1951 Act 3 of 1952. The case was that on 10 61958 they trespassed into the reserve forest and cut down a sandalwood tree. The learned Magistrate took up the case on file as C. C. 124 of 1962 and issued summons for the appearance of the accused on 15 61962. On that day accused were not served. The Magistrate passed the following order: "i find that the Act under which the case has been preferred is repealed and that the Act in force at present is the Act IV of 1962. Hence there is no ground for proceeding with the case. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed under S. 203 Cr. P. C. "

(2.) THE order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under S. 203 Cr. P. C. , is patently wrong and unsustainable in law. That section gives power to the Magistrate to dismiss a complaint without issuing process, if in his opinion no sufficient ground is made out for proceeding with the enquiry. But there can be no dismissal of complaint under S. 203 after the case is taken on file and process is issued. This is a summons case and the summons case procedure has to be followed and order has to be passed either convicting or acquitting the accused.

(3.) SO there is a specific saving of penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of offences committed against any enactment so repealed. It is contended that this provision could be attracted only when an Act or regulation is repealed 'simpliciter', but not when as in the present case, the repeal is followed by re-enactment. The repealing Act, it is pointed out, nowhere provides that offences committed, when Act 3 of 1952 was in force could be punished after its repeal and that S. 85 of the new Act which contains its saving provisions does not indicate that a criminal liability incurred when the repealed Act was in force would continue after it came to an end.