Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G.Girish, J.
C.P.Sunaid, S/o. Subari Haji - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam - Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1276 OF 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Grashious Kuriakose (SR.), Sri.George Mathews, Sri.Pranoy K.Kottaram
For the Respondent: Sri. Sangeetharaj N.R., Public Prosecutor
Cognizance of offences under the Environment (Protection) Act must be based on a complaint from the authorized authority, not on a police report.
Headnote:(A) The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 15 and Section 19 - Cognizance of offences - The petitioners were charged under Section 15 for reconstruction of a hotel without clearance. The court held that cognizance could only be taken on a complaint by the authorized authority, not on a police report. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 4(2) - The court emphasized that special statutes govern the procedure for cognizance of offences, overriding general provisions. (Paras 6-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were charged for reconstructing a hotel without necessary clearance, leading to a police report being filed. The petitioners contended that the cognizance taken was invalid as it did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section 19 of the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution was not maintainable as the police report did not comply with the requirements of Section 19 of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could take cognizance of the offence based on a police report instead of a complaint from the authorized authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that cognizance of offences under the Act must be based on a complaint from the authorized authority, and not on a police report, reaffirming the principle that special statutes govern the procedure for cognizance.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
ORDER :
Whether the bar in taking cognizance of offences under The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, in view of Section 19 of the said Act, is fatal for the maintainability of a prosecution instituted on a final report filed by the police in respect of the offence under Section 15 of the said Act, is the matter to be decided in this petition.
2. The petitioners who are running a hotel at Kannur, were booked by the Kannur City Police for the offence under Section 15 of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the reconstruction of their hotel without obtaining the clearance from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority. The crime was registered on 07.05.2016 as per the direction of the District Collector, Kannur. After the completion of the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur City filed the final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate alleging that the petitioners committed offence under Section 15 of the Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, admitted the final report to files as C.C.No.1336/2017 and issued summons to the petitioners. Now, the petitioners seek to quash all the proceedings initiated against them consequent to the registration of the said crime stating the reason that Section 19 of the Act proscribes taking cognizance of the offence under Section 15 of the Act except on a complaint preferred by the authority or person authorised by the said Section.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
4. Section 19 of the Act, as it stood at the time of commission of the alleged offence, is as follows:
“19. Cognizance of offences - No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by -
(a) the Central Government or any authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that Government, or
(b) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint, to the Central Government or the authority or officer authorised as aforesaid.”
5. As per the aforesaid provision of the Act, cognizance of any offence under that Act could be taken if only the complaint is filed by the Central Government or any authority or officer authorised by that Government, or by a person who had given notice sixty days in advance in the prescribed manner to the Central Government or the authorised officer or authority about its intention to prefer such a complaint. As far as the present case is concerned, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the final report filed by the S.I of Police, Kannur City about the commission of offence. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the crime in this regard had been registered by the police on the basis of the direction of the District Collector, Kannur, who is authorised by the Central Government to initiate proceedings under the Act for the violation of the provisions incorporated thereunder. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the offence under Section 15 of the Act is punishable with imprisonment upto five years and hence it is a cognizable offence coming under Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the bar contained under Section 19 of the Act has no applicability for the case on hand. The learned counsel for the petitioners, per contra, submitted that the tenor of the wordings in Section 19 of the Act make it abundantly clear that there is a blanket bar against taking cognizance of any offence under the Act except upon a complaint made by the authority or person prescribed thereunder, and hence the argument advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor cannot survive the scrutiny of law in view of the provisions contained in Section 4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. Section 4 of the Code of Crimina
