Biju and Others Vs. State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, Honourable High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and Another

Biju and Others vs State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, Honourable High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 25, 2015

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1181615

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1181615
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: B. Kemal Pasha
Decided On: Nov 25, 2015
Case Number: Crl.MC.No. 6886 of 2015
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 - Sections 4(1)(A) and 21 Validity of complaint - Petitioners are charge sheeted for offences under Sections 4(1)(A) and 21 of the Act Court held - Final report, by Additional Sub Inspector of Police was filed on same date as date of commencement of notif...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Biju and Others

Respondent

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, Honourable High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and Another

Excerpt

mines and minerals (regulation of development) act, 1957 - sections 4(1)(a) and 21 validity of complaint - petitioners are charge sheeted for offences under sections 4(1)(a) and 21 of the act court held - final report, by additional sub inspector of police was filed on same date as date of commencement of notification - therefore, compliant is also hit by said notification - as on date of filing of final report, additional sub inspector of police was not authorised to file complaint -even otherwise, police report has been filed in matter and, therefore, cognizance could not have been taken on such police report - person authorized should have filed complaint in writing in matter - therefore, final report is not legally sustainable and is quashed complaint allowed. para 2 comparative citation: 2015 (4) klt 952, 1. petitioners are charge sheeted for offences under sections 4(1)(a) and 21 of the mines and minerals (regulation of development) act, 1957. the present prosecution is through annexure-2 final report filed by the additional sub inspector of police, mulanthuruthy police station. 2. as per section 22 of the said act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under that act or any rules made thereunder, except on the complaint in writing made by a person authorised in that behalf by the central government or the state government. as per annexure-3 notification dated 05.06.2015, a police officer is not a person authorised to prefer the complaint in writing within the meaning of section 22 of the act. the present final report was filed on 05.06.2015. therefore, when the notification commenced on 05.06.2015, the present compliant is also hit by the said notification. as on the date of filing of the final report, the additional sub inspector of police was not authorised to file a complaint. even otherwise, it seems that a police report has been filed in the matter and, therefore, cognizance could not have been taken on such a police report. the person authorized should have filed a complaint in writing in the matter. therefore, annexure-2 is not legally sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. in the result, this crl.m.c. is allowed and annexure-2 final report is quashed.

Full Judgment

1. Petitioners are charge sheeted for offences under Sections 4(1)(A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957. The present prosecution is through Annexure-2 final report filed by the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy Police Station.

2. As per Section 22 of the said Act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under that Act or any Rules made thereunder, except on the complaint in writing made by a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. As per Annexure-3 notification dated 05.06.2015, a police officer is not a person authorised to prefer the complaint in writing within the meaning of Section 22 of the Act. The present final report was filed on 05.06.2015. Therefore, when the notification commenced on 05.06.2015, the present compliant is also hit by the said notification. As on the date of filing of the Final Report, the Additional Sub Inspector of Police was not authorised to file a complaint. Even otherwise, it seems that a police report has been filed in the matter and, therefore, cognizance could not have been taken on such a police report. The person authorized should have filed a complaint in writing in the matter. Therefore, Annexure-2 is not legally sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-2 final report is quashed.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2015 Same Parties Biju and Others vs State of Kerala, represented by Public Pro... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge B. Kemal Pasha

Land Acquisition