MANIKFAN Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated this the 27th day of February, 2025 Petitioner is the 10th accused in S.T.C.No.27 of 2024 pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Androth, Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The case arose from a complaint filed by the 1st respondent under Sec. 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging violation of Regulation 4 of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands (Protection of Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1964. To be more specific, the allegation is that, on 11/6/2018, the accused, who are trustees of 'Peace Foundation Minicoy', registered at Calicut, executed two lease deeds with respect to the properties situated in Lakshadweep. It is alleged that, by entering into the lease deed with a trust registered at Calicut, the accused had violated Regulation 4 of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands (Protection of Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, thereby rendering themselves liable for prosecution. The petitioner is seeking to get the proceedings against him quashed mainly on the ground that he is not a signatory to the lease deed under which the properties were transferred and cannot even otherwise be prosecuted, he being a native of Lakshadweep. It is also contended that under Annexure D trust deed, power is conferred on the Chairman of the trust to independently acquire, sell and lease properties belonging to the trust.

(2.) Learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration submitted that, merely for the reason that the petitioner is a native of Lakshadweep and a member of the Scheduled Tribe, there is no prohibition against prosecuting him under the provisions of the 1964 Regulation. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s. B' Canti Group of Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. v. A.B. Hussain Manikfan (Writ Appeal No.985 of 2008). It is argued that the question as to whether petitioner had knowledge about execution of the lease deed or the Chairman could have executed the deed without consent from the other trust members are all matters of evidence.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel on either side and upon perusing the documents produced as well as the judgment in M/s. B' Canti Group of Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner's status as a a Lakshadweep native does not grant him or the others immunity from prosecution. The factual arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner requires this Court to appreciate the evidence, which cannot be done under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The law on this point is well laid down by the decisions of the Apex Court including State of Bihar and Another v. K.J.D. Singh [1994 SCC (Cri) 63].