The sole accused in Crime No.792 of 2012 of Kunnathunadu Police Station has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-I F.I.R. and Annexure-II Final Report filed against him by the State/respondent.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 26.8.2012 at about 18 hours, the petitioner was found, stacked river sand illegally, violating the provisions of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Sand Act') in the compound of one Noushad Chemmalakudi at Choorakode Kara Pattimattom village, by the respondent and the same had been seized by the respondent. As the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Sand Act, 2001, Annexure-I F.I.R. No. 792 of 2012 of Kunnathunadu Police Station was registered against the petitioner under Section 17(4) read with Section 20 of the Sand Act. Annexure-II is the Final Report submitted by the respondent in which cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry as C.C. No. 809 of 2013 on 9.9.2013.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the Final Report submitted by the respondent and hence the FIR and the Final Report have to be quashed.

4. On a perusal of the materials before me, it could be seen that the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnathunadu Police Station has registered Annexure-I, FIR under Section 17(4) read with Section 20 of the Sand Act against this petitioner alleging that he has violated the provisions of the Sand Act.

5. The learned counsel relying on the decision of this Court in Sherif and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police, Konni and Another (2010 (1) KLT 394) would point out that the court is not empowered to take cognizance in the Final Report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnathunadu and hence, the proceedings initiated against him has to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6. All the offences under the Sand Act are made cognizable under Section 24 of the Sand Act. It is apposite to reproduce Section 24 of the Sand Act as under :

"24. Offences under this Act to be cognizable.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), all offences under this Act shall be cognizable."

Section 25 of the Sand Act says 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'.

So, on a reading of the above provisions of the Sand Act, it could be seen that the all offences under this Act are cognizable and no court can take cognizance of the offence except upon a written complaint made by a person authorised in this behalf. But it is to be noted that 'complaint' has not been defined in the Act or in the Rules.

7. The term "complaint" has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as follows:

"Any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.'

Explanation to S.2(d) says that:

"A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant."

8. From a reading of Section 25 of the Act, it is clear that only if a complaint is lodged by the authorised officer, in writing, cognizance can be taken for an offence against any person who has violated the provisions of this Act.

9. In Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 538), this Court has held that cognizance under the Sand Act cannot be taken on the basis of a report submitted by the officer under S.173 (