SHIHAS Vs. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing Reg. No. KL -46 -G -6209, which was seized by the respondent/Sub Inspector of Police alleging illegal transportation of 'ordinary earth'. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner has not used the vehicle in contravention of any provisions of the 'MMDR Act, 1957'/'KMMC Rules, 1967, or the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet Land Act (Act 28 of 2008). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle was being used to transport 'ordinary earth' covered by valid permit/P Form.

(2.) HEARD the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that, no supporting document was there and that the offence involved is under the MMDR Act/KMMC Rules. No offence under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 or 'Sand Act' is stated as involved. Section 23A of the Act and Rule 60A of the Rules enable the party to have the offence compounded. The question whether the prosecution proceedings could be pursued further, once the offence is compounded in accordance with the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act has already been considered and decided by this Court in : 2013 (1) KLT 600 (Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police), holding that, once the offence is compounded, there cannot be any further prosecution proceedings. The directions given as per the above verdict are extracted below:

(3.) COMING to the extent of amount to be satisfied as compounding fee, the Rules specifically stipulate that any offence under the Rules can be compounded subject to the satisfaction of the maximum fine prescribed under the Rules, which is stated as Rs. 5,000/ -. But in respect of the transportation of sand/earth without any valid pass/sanction, it is stated as an offence under the 'Act' itself by virtue of the incorporation of Section 4(1A), for which separate penalty is provided under the Act itself. The maximum fine in respect of such offence prescribed under the Act is stated as Rs. 25,000/ -. It was in the said circumstance, that this Court was passing orders enabling the party to have interim custody of the vehicle, on satisfaction of a sum of Rs. 25,000/ -, also directing the concerned respondent to consider the application for compounding, if any.