1. On 3.8.2008, the second respondent noticed that the writ petitioner was conducting money lending without licence as contemplated under the Money Lenders Act. Accordingly, a case as Crime No. 820 of 2008 was registered. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioner approached the first respondent, the authorisded officer to compound the offence under Section 18E of the Money Lenders Act with Ext.P1 application. Alleging that the first respondent was not acting upon Ext.P1, the writ petitioner moved this Court with W.P.(C) 3395 of 2009. By Ext.P2 judgment dated 2.2.2009, this Court directed the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 application and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of that judgment. It was further ordered that in the meanwhile, further proceedings in Crime No. 820/2008 will stand deferred for six weeks from that date. Accordingly, in obedience to the direction of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment, the first respondent considered Ext.P1 application and rejected the same by Ext.P3 order stating that the second respondent had initiated action and in that circumstance, Ext.P1 petition is premature and intended to defeat the criminal case and the resultant actions thereon. It is seen that after investigation, the second respondent filed Ext.P4 charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kunnamkulam , a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4. Now this writ petition is filed seeking the following main reliefs:

i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Exhibit P4, charge sheet is highly illegal.

ii. issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction and quash Exhibit P4, charge sheet in Crime No. 820/2008 filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam.

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, orders or direction to the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to composition of the offences claimed by the petitioner as provided under Section 18 E of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, vide Exhibit P1.

2. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit interalia contending that the conduct of the writ petitioner in doing money lending business without obtaining proper licence is punishable under Section 17 of the Money Lenders Act and is liable to be punished for a minimum period of three months and also for fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-and since minimum imprisonment for a period of three months is mandataory, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I find that the offence under Section 17 of the Money Lenders Act is a cognizable offence and the second respondent was correct in registering the crime and investigating the same and filing Ext.P4 charge report. The only contention that was advanced is that the conduct of doing money lending business without licence is compoundable under Section 18E of the Act and in the event Ext.P1 application is considered by the first respondent in time, no offence under Section 17 could be made out. I find no merit in the submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner. It is not disputed that carrying on business in money lending without proper licence under Section 3 of the Money Lenders Act is punishable under Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. By virtue of Section 12, it is cognizable. Hence the Station House Officer can take cognizance and prosecute the offender. Section 18(C) would show that the licensing authority is also empowered to initiate departmental action and impose penalty. Having gone through sections 12,13, 14, 16, 16A, 16B, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 18C, 18D, 18E and 20A, I find that prosecution contemplated under Sections 13, 17, 18A and 18B is independent of the power of the licensing authority appointed under Section 2 (4A) to initiate departmental action or to co