THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Sujith – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Director General of Prosecutions.
2. Examining the statutory provisions as contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, for short, the "Act", in the backdrop of decisions rendered by this Court touching different aspects of that Act, we see that the learned Judge, in making the order of reference, was justified in stating that the situation in hand needs further consideration because, in the ultimate analysis, it is also the requirement that section 20 of the Act is effectively implemented.
3. Section 20 of the Act provides the penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Section 21 provides the penalty for abetment of any offence punishable under the Act. Taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act stands governed by sections 24 and 25. Statutory provisions authorising various actions in terms of the provisions of the Act, either by the revenue authorities or by the criminal courts, have been dealt with,quite elaborately, in different decisions; Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala[
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.