RIJO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 17 of 2003 on the file of the Chengamanad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 12(2), 20,48(k) and 58(1) of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 was charge-sheeted along with the first accused by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chengamanadu on 20-2-2003. On 20-3-2003 the J.F.C.M.I., Aluva took cognizance of the offences and registered the case as C.C. 412 of 2003. Subsequently, the case against the petitioner who was absconding was split up and re-filed as C.C. 836 of 2006.

(2.) The prayer of the petitioner is to quash Annexure I charge-sheet and the subsequent proceedings initiated as C.C. No. 836 of 2007 before the J.F.C.M. I, Aluva.

(3.) Section 25 of the aforesaid Act enjoins that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Government or the District Collector or a Geologist of the Department of Mining and Geology. The police were not authorised under Section 25 of the said Act until 18-1 -2007 when as per G.O.(Ms) No. 11/07/RD dated 10-01 -2007 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 18-01-2007 Station House Officers were also given the power to file a complaint under Section 25 of the Act. Hence, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences on the basis of a police report filed prior to the aforesaid notification. The cognizance taken is, therefore, bad in law. Consequently, C.C. No. 836 of 2007 pending before the J.F.C.M. I, Aluva will stand quashed.