Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE5H DAY OF SEPTEMBER201314TH BHADRA, 1935 WP(C).No. 22118 of 2013 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS : ----------- 1. ANIL KUMAR, AGED43YEARS,S/O. GOPALAN, OTTAPURATH HOUSE, KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
2. SAJI, AGED21YEARS, S/O. SHAJU, KUNNIL VEEDU,MEENAMBALAM, PAMPURAM CHERRY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.REKHA NAIR RESPONDENT : ---------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ENATHU POLICE STATION BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0509-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP WP(C).No. 22118 of 2013 (L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1: COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT OF VEHICLE NO.KL24 E455IN FAVOUR OF THE1T PETITIONER P2: COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR & FIR PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE BP P.R. RAMACHANDRAMENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 22118 of 2013 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th day of September, 2013 JUDGMENT
The issue involved in this case is, whether the petitioners who have been proceeded against in respect of the offences under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 [MMDR Act] and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 [KMMC Rules] are entitled to have the offence compounded in view of the desire expressed from their side in this regard, vide Ext. P3.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that vehicle belonging to the first petitioner bearing No. KL-24-E-455 was seized by the respondent, alleging violation of the provisions under the MMDR Act. According to the petitioners they are entitled to have the offence compounded, as sought for by the first petitioner vide Ext. P3 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. Section 23A of the Act and Rule 60A of the Rules enable the parties to have the offence compounded. The question whether the prosecution proceedings could be pursued further, once the offence is compounded in accordance with the relevant provisions W.P.(C) No. 22118 of 2013 :
2. : of the MMDR Act has already been considered and decided by this Court in 2013 (1) KLT600( 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 W.P.(C) No. 22118 of 2013 :
3. : 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 petitioners are also entitled to have similar relief.
5. Coming to the extent of amount to be satisfied as compounding fee, the Rules specifically stipulate that any offence under the Rules can be compounded subject to the satisfaction of the maximum fine prescribed under the Rules, which is stated as Rs. 5,000/-. But in respect of the transportation of sand/earth without any valid pass/sanction, it is stated as an offence under the 'Act' itself by virtue of the incorporation of Section 4(1A), for which separate penalty is provided under the Act itself. The maximum fine in respect of such offence prescribed under the Act is stated as Rs. 25,000/-. It was in the said circumstance, that this Court was passing various orders enabling the concerned petitioners to have interim custody of the vehicle on satisfaction of a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, also directing the concerned respondent to consider the application for compounding, if any.
6. In view of the willingness expressed from the part of the petitioners to have the offence compounded, conceding the guilt, W.P.(C) No. 22118 of 2013 :
4. : this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P3 to compound the offence, if the petitioners satisfy a sum of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five thousand only). It is ordered accordingly. It is made clear that once the offence alleged against the petitioners is compounded, no prosecution proceedings shall be pursued against them. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE sv