SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Ker) 460

THOMAS P.JOSEPH
N. J. Mathew – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:T.Madhu, Advocate.
For the Respondents: No Appearance.

JUDGMENT :-

Could an Officer empowered under Section 68 of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, "the Act") compound an offence (other than offence under Secs.62 and 65 of the Act) when the case is pending before the criminal court? What is the effect of such composition on the pending case? These questions are urged for a decision in this proceeding initiated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code").

2. Petitioner is accused in O.R. No.1 of 2009 of Forest Range Office, Kanhangad and C.C. No.245 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg for offences punishable under Sec.27(1) (e) (iii) and (iv) of the Act. Case against petitioner is that he trespassed into the reserve forest, cut and removed 17 bamboo poles and caused loss of `500/- to the State Government. Petitioner moved an application before the Divisional Forest Officer, Kannur (for short, "the DFO") to compound the offence as provided under Sec.68 of the Act. That application was rejected by the DFO vide Annexure-A4, order dated 14.06.2010 for the reason that since final report is filed and the case is pending before court, request for compounding cannot be enter


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top