RAHUL T Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are accused in a case registered by the second respondent as O.R.No.2 of 2017 under Sections 27(1) (e)(iii) and (iv) and 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (the Act). After investigation, a final report has been filed by the second respondent, and the case is now pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kuthuparamba. Ext.P3 is the final report in the case. The allegations against the petitioners in the case is that they have trespassed into the forest and removed a fallen tree in the category of "Xylia Xylo Corpa", after cutting the same into pieces using a saw, and thereby caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.900/-. The offence alleged against the petitioners being an offence which could be compounded under Section 68 of the Act, petitioners preferred an application before the competent authority for compounding the offence alleged against them. The application was rejected on the ground that the same cannot be considered when the case is pending trial before the competent court. Ext.P4 is the order issued by the competent authority in this connection. Ext.P4 has been challenged by the petitioners before this Court in Crl.M.C. No.2483 of 2019. In terms of Ext.P5 order, this Court set aside Ext.P4 order and directed the competent authority to consider the application afresh, holding that the pendency of the case before the criminal court is not a bar in the matter of considering the application for compounding. Thereupon, the competent authority passed Ext.P7 order rejecting the request made by the petitioners again, holding that as the offences alleged against them are of serious nature, the request cannot be considered. Ext.P7 is under challenge in the writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that insofar as the offences alleged against the petitioners are offences that could be compounded under Section 68 of the Act, the competent authority has no discretion to reject the same, if an application is made for the said purpose and the rejection of the request on the ground that the offences are of serious nature, is unsustainable. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C. No.4301 of 2008. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation against the petitioners is only that they have removed a fallen tree in the forest and that the loss caused to the Government being only Rs.900/-, on facts, it is a case where the competent authority ought to have compounded the offences alleged.