Aravindakshan vs. The Sub Inspector Of Police
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.741 of 2018 on the file of the JFCM Court-II, Payyannur. He is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 21(1) of the Mining and Minerals (Development & Regulation)
Crl.MC.No. 5328 of 2018 2 Act. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on police report is illegal.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
Section 22 of the MMDR Act provides that cognizance can be taken only on a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. Admittedly, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of a final report filed by the police. The order taking ognizance is illegal. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in S.T.No.741 of 2018 on the file of the JFCM Court-II, Payyannur are quashed. This is not a bar for the authorised person to file a complaint if he is so advised. K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE pm
Crl.MC.No. 5328 of 2018 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1:OF THE GST REGISTRATION ISSUED M/S.SHA TRADES AND MINERALS. ANNEXURE A2:OF THE TRANSIT PASS ISSUED BY THE ASSISTNAT DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY ANDHRA PRADESH DATED 10/01/2018 ANNEXURE A3:OF THE E-WAY BILL GENERATED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF KERALA ANNEXURE A4:G.O.(P) 77/2015/ID DATED 05/06/2015 PUBLISHED VISE S.R.O. NO.375/2016 PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT ANNEXURE A5:OF THE FIR IN FINA REPORT IN CRIME NO.74/2018 REGISTERED BY THE PAYYANNUR POLICE RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //// PA TO JUDGE
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.