IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/4TH VAISAKHA, 1937

WP(C).No. 12970 of 2015 (U)

----------------------------

PETITIONER :

-----------------------

P.M.BENNY, S/O MARKOSE P.P. ,

PUTHANKUDY HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR.P.O.,

PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM (OWNER OF JC B

BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-05-AB-2782).

BY ADV. SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH

RESPONDENT :

----------------------------

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

KURAVILANGED POLICE STATION,

KOTTAYAM, PIN -686 633

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

ON 24-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED

THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C).No. 12970 of 2015 (U)

-----------------------------------------

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

-------------------------------------

EXT.P1

TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE

BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-05-AB-2782

EXT.P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 17-4-2015 PREPARED BY THE

RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

------------------------------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

----------------------------------

W.P.(C).No.12970 of 2015

------------------------------------

Dated this the 24^th day of April, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of an excavator JCB bearing

Registration No.KL-05-AB-2782, which was seized by the

respondent alleging illegal transportation of 'ordinary earth' in

contravention of the relevant provisions of the 'MMRD Act,

1957'/'KMM(PIMST) Rules, 2015'. The learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner would like to have the offence

compounded and that the above mentioned vehicle might be caused

to be released after accepting the compounding fee.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits

that, no valid supporting document was there and that the offence

involved is under the MMRD Act/ KMM(PIMST) Rules. No offence

under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act,

2008 or 'Sand Act' as stated is involved.

3. Section 23A of the Act and Rule 32 of the Rules enable the

party to have the offence compounded. The question whether the

prosecution proceedings could be pursued further, once the offence

W.P.(C).No.12970 of 2015

2

is compounded in accordance with the relevant provisions of the

MMRD Act has already been considered and decided by this Court in

2013 (1) KLT 600 ( Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police), holding

that, once the offence is compounded, there cannot be any further

prosecution proceedings. The directions given as per the above

verdict are extracted below :

“i) In cases where compounding applications

have been acted upon as per the interim orders passed

by this Court and the offences have been compounded

and compounding fees have been collected and vehicles

have been released, it is declared that no further

proceedings can be taken for confiscation of the

vehicles;

ii) In cases where complaints have been filed

before the Court but compounding applications have

been entertained and offences have been compounded,

appropriate applications will be filed before the Courts

and the concerned Courts will pass appropriate orders in

the matter with regard to the closure of the cases

pending;

iii) In cases where compounding applications are

yet to be filed by the parties concerned, it is open to

them to file applications which will be dealt with by the

officer concerned in accordance with law and they will

be free to pass appropriate orders on it. If no

applications are filed within a period of three weeks

from today and if compounding is not being allowed, it

is open to the concerned officers to complete the

procedures as enjoined by law.”

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the petitione