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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 73854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JASMON V. P. – Appellant
Versus
THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 191/2022



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(CRL.) NO. 191 OF 2022 PETITIONERS:

1 JASMON V. P.

AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, VADAKKEPURATH HOUSE, MARIYAD P. O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 122.

2 SHIHABUDHEEN M.

AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. ENNI MUHAMMED, MUTTONGADAN, MARIYAD P. O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 122.

3 ISHAQUE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED HAJI, KURUNGODATH HOUSE, PALLIYALI, MARIYAD P. O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 122.

4 PRASANTH P., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.CHANDU, MELEKANDIYIL HOUSE, MARIYAD P. O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 122.

BY ADV SRI. K.RAKESH RESPONDEN T S :

1 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 020.

2 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PERUVANNAMUZHI FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 526.

BY SRI.T P SAJAN,SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

‘ C.R.’

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of February, 2022 This Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs;

“i) Call for records leading to Exhibit P2 and set aside the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions;

ii) Declare that the petitioners are entitled to compound the offence as provided under Section 68 of the Kerala Forest Act;

iii) Direct the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P1 afresh and compound the offence booked as against the petitioners without insisting the personal appearance of the petitioners and report of the investigating officer;

iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Writ petitioners are accused in O.R No.05/2021 of Peruvannamuzhi Forest Station registered by the 2nd respondent for offences punishable under Sections 47B, 47C, 47E, 47G and 47H of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (For short, ‘the Act’). The allegation against them was that on 22.09.2021, they were found in possession of 54.3 Kgms of sandal wood, tools and instruments for cutting sandal woods in a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL- 56C-441. All the above offences are compoundable under Section 68 of the Act and thereupon, petitioners filed a compounding petition before the 1st respondent on 26.11.2021, copy of which petition and the postal receipt evidencing the forwarding of the above petition before the 1st respondent are also produced alongwith as Exts.P1 and P1(a). Vide judgment dated 13.12.2021, this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 within a time frame, true copy of which judgment is produced alongwith as Ext.P2. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2, the 1st respondent recorded in it’s order passed on 19.01.2022 that the accused did not appear personally on 14.01.2021 but were represented by counsel who laid vakalth for them. It was further recorded that a report of the Investigating Officer is very much essential for compounding the offences and therefore, it was called for from him. It was informed by the Investigating Officer that the accused are not traceable after dismissal of their bail application and therefore they were not interrogated. According to them, therefore a reasonable conclusion on compounding could not be arrived at and accordingly the compounding application was not considered. The true copy of the order dated 19.01.2022 passed by the 1st respondent, referred to above is appended to as Ext.P3. In the aforesaid circumstances that the writ petition is filed seeking for the above reliefs.

3. Going by Ext.P3 order under challenge, it is found that the application seeking for compounding was rejected by the 1st respondent, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kozhikode and the petitioners were directed to appear before the Investigating

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top