Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J
Divisional Forest Officer, Marayoor Forest Division – Appellant
Versus
Range Forest Officer – Respondent
Crl.M.C.Nos.65 and 86 of 2025 | Crl.M.C.Nos.73, 74 and 85 of 2025
For the Petitioners: Advs.Babu S. Nair
For the Accused: Thomas J Anakallungal, Sreelakshmi Sabu
For the State: Adv.Nagaraj Narayanan
Public servants are entitled to statutory protections during investigations, requiring adherence to prescribed procedures for complaints against them.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Forest Act - Sections 27(1)(d), 27(1)(e)(ii), 27(1)(e)(iii), 27(1)(e)(iv), and Sections 47C, 47G - Allegations of torture by forest officials during custody - Procedure under Section 223 of BNSS to be followed for cognizance - Complaints filed by accused were accepted without affording opportunity to the accused public officials to explain the situation, violating statutory safeguards. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 16)
(B) Public Servant Protection - The court emphasized the need for adherence to procedural requirements when accepting complaints against public servants, particularly under Section 223(2) of BNSS, which extends protection during the discharge of official functions. (Paras 9, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, forest officials, were accused of torturing detainees during custody after registered cases under the Kerala Forest Act. Various procedural irregularities in the handling of complaints against them were raised.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the cognizance orders against the petitioners, directing the Magistrate to adhere to prescribed statutory procedures for future proceedings.
Issues: The main questions revolved around the required procedures under the BNSS for taking cognizance of complaints against public servants and their protection during official duties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that procedural safeguards under Section 223(2) of BNSS must be followed to ensure just treatment of public servants when allegations of misconduct arise.
Result: Crl.M.C.Nos.73, 74 and 85 of 2025 are allowed; proceedings to commence afresh with adherence to legal requirements.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case origin and allegations against forest officials. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural failings in cognizance of complaints against public servants. (Para 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. final ruling directing adherence to required procedures. (Para 10) |
| 4. the legal conclusion on the failure to adhere to statutory processes. (Para 11 , 17) |
| 5. court observations concerning the necessity of fair legal processes. (Para 14 , 16) |
ORDER
Petitioners are forest officials, the 1st petitioner being the Divisional Forest Officer, Marayoor Forest Division and the 2nd petitioner, the Range Forest Officer. Three crimes were registered at the Marayoor Forest Range as O.R.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2024 for offences under Sections 27 (1)(d), 27(1)(e)(ii), 27(1) (e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) read with Sections 47C and 47G of the Kerala Forest Act against certain persons including the 2nd respondents herein. As the facts in Crl.M.C.Nos.65 and 86 of 2025 are slightly different from those in Crl.M.C.Nos.73, 74 and 85 of 2025, the two sets of cases are dealt with separately.
Crl.M.C.Nos.73, 74 and 85 of 2025
Pursuant to the registration of O.R.Nos.1,2 and 3 of 2024, Vinod, the 5th accused in O.R.No.1 of 2025, was arrested and his confession statement recorded on 14.11.2024. During his confession, Vinod revealed the names of Sarath @ Siva, Soorya, Suresh and Liju @ Jithu as participants in the crime. Thereafter, the 1st accused Sarath was taken into custody on 18.11.2024. In the confession statement of Sarath recorded on 19.11.2024, he mentioned about the involvement of others named Manoj, Rajesh and Jaleel. Thereupon, Manoj, Rajesh and Jaleel were arrested on 21.11.2024. After recording their arrest the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devikulam and remanded to judicial custody. While so, the petitioners sought the custody of Sarath, Manoj and Rajesh for the purpose of interrogation. The learned Magistrate allowed the prayer and granted custody from 04.12.2024 to 09.12.2024. On completion of the custody period the accused were produced before the Magistrate on 09.12.2024. Later in the day, after meeting their lawyer, the accused complained to the Magistrate that they were subjected to extreme harassment and physical torture by the petitioners. The Magistrate thereupon directed the accused to be taken for medical examination. After returning from the hospital, Sarath, Manoj and Rajesh submitted written complaints to the Magistrate. The Magistrate accepted the complaints and recorded the sworn statements of the accused on 21.12.2024. Based on the complaints and the sworn statements, the Magistrate took cognisance of the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 120(1), 127(2), 194 and 351(1) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and issued summons to the petitioners. The cases were thereupon numbered as C.C.Nos.613, 612 and 614 of 2024 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devikulam.
Crl.M.C.Nos.65 and 86 of 2025
The 2nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.65 of 2025 is the 4th accused in O.R.No.1 of 2024 and was arrested on 14.11.2024. While continuing in judicial custody, the 2nd respondent submitted a complaint alleging physical torture while he was in the custody of the petitioners. Thereupon, the Magistrate issued notice under Section 223 (1) of BNSS to the petitioners.
2. The 2nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.86 of 2025 is the 5th accused in O.R.No.3 of 2024. He was arrested on 21.11.2024 and at the request of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent was given to their custody from 23.11.2024 to 26.11.2024. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent submitted Annexure B complaint to the Magistrate on 17.12.2024, and the Magistrate issued notices to the petitioners under Section 223 (1) of B NSS .
3. Heard Advs.Babu S. Nair for the petitioners, Thomas J Anakallungal and Sreelakshmi Sabu for the accused. Adv.Nagaraj Narayanan, the Special Government Pleader (Forest) appeared for the State.
4. Learned counsel for
