Kerala High Court
Crl.MC/3553/2012 of ABDUL SALAM Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 3553 of 2012 (D) -------------------------- CMP.1039/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II (FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/ ACCUSED:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 3553 of 2012 (D)
--------------------------
CMP.1039/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II (FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI
PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/ ACCUSED:--------------------------------- ABDUL SALAM, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O HAMZA, THOTTIYAN HOUSE, ERANHIMANGAD P.O., CHALIYAR PANCHAYAT, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RKM
--------------------------
APPENDIX
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES :
NIL
TRUE COPY
PA TO JUDGE
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Criminal M.C.No.3553/2012
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 31[st]day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
Aggrieved by Annexure 'G' order passed in C.M.P.No.1039/2011 bythe court below, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing thisCriminal Miscellaneous Case.
2. He is the accused in O.R.No.4/2011 of the Kanhirappuzha Forest Station which is a case instituted against the petitioner allegingoffences under Sections 27(1)(IV) and (III) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961(Amendment Act 1993) and under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act.
3. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner filed anapplication to release the timber seized by way of interim custody and acopy of the application has been produced as Annexure-F. It appears thatthe items involved are Rosewood trees, Erool, Jackfruittrees as well asTeak trees etc.
4. In Annexure-G order the court below has taken the view thatthe petition is not liable to be allowed as the petitioner has not producedany documents to show that properties involved in O.R.No.4/11 ofKanhirapuzha Forest Station belongs to the petitioner. It is alsomentioned that the Government claimed that those items are cut andremoved from the Government reserve forest.
Criminal M.C.No.3553/2012
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitionerhad produced along with the application, copies of the documents, whichare listed as Annexure-F(7) herein. Those documents appear to be are,photocopy of a sale deed No.3933/2010 of Kurumbalangod Village inEdakkara Sub Registry as well as photocopies of Tax Receipts andPossession Certificate. It is submitted that none of the documents havebeen considered by the court below while passing the impugned order.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the order has beenpassed correctly and legally as the Government has also claimed theproperty.
7. What is sought for by the petitioner is interim release of thetimber claiming that it was cut and removed from his private property.Prima facie, the court below has rejected the application on valid grounds.
8. In these proceedings, under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure Code, I do not find any reason to interfere with thesame. The matter is pending and at this stage it may not be proper torelease the valuable timber including rosewood and teak wood especiallysince the Government has also claimed that the trees have been removedfrom the Government reserve forest. There is no scope for anyinterference in the matter. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is thusdismissed. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)