IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 23RD VAISAKHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 1618 OF 2022
(TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN OR NO. 3 OF 2021 OF VAIRAMONY
FOREST STATION)
PETITIONER:
JAYAKUMAR,
S/O RAVEENDRAN NAIR,
KUNNEL VEEDU,
KULAMAVU P O,
ARAKKULAM., PIN - 685601
BY ADV SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY RANGER
VAIRAMONY FOREST STATION, IDUKKI DIST,
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
PIN - 682031
BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI T P SAJAN
(FOREST)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31.03.2022, THE COURT ON 13.05.2022 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
-:2:-
MARY JOSEPH, J.
-----------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 1618 of 2022
-----------------------
Dated this the 13th day of May, 2022
ORDER
The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'). Petitioner is the sole accused in O.R.No.3/2021 of Vairamony Forest Station and is alleged as committed an offence punishable under Rule 4 of the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules, 1995').
2. The case of the prosecution was that Anjili trees were cut by him from the property assigned to his father by Government. Copies of O.R. No.3/2021 and Mahazar are produced alongwith the petition on hand as Annexures 1 and 2. Copy of the Patta obtained by petitioner's father from the Government is also produced alongwith the petition on hand as Annexure 3.
-:3:-
3. According to Sri. Tom Thomas, the land wherefrom Anjili trees have been cut belong to petitioner's father by Annexure 3 and there is no reservation therein that ownership of any trees standing therein vests with the Government itself and for want of such a reservation, petitioner's father being the owner of the land, an offence under Rule 4 of Rules, 1995 cannot be alleged as committed by the petitioner. O.R. No.3/2021 registered against him is sought to be quashed invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has also relied on Augustine Mathew and Another v. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KHC 179] in support of his contention.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor invited the attention of this Court to condition No.1 in Annexure 3 and contended that though Patta with reference to the land wherefrom Anjili trees are cut was granted in favour of the father of petitioner, petitioner is prevented from cutting any trees standing inside the said land.
Condition No.1 reads :
"അനുവദിച്ചുകിട്ടിയ സ്ഥലത്തിനകത്തുള്ളതും പട്ടികയിൽ പ്രത്യേകം പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുള്ളതുമായ എല്ലാ വനവൃക്ഷങ്ങളുടെയും -:4:- പൂർണ്ണ അവകാശം ഗവണ്മെന്റ് വനംവകുപ്പിൽ നിക്ഷിപ്തമായിരിക്കുന്നതും ആ ഭൂമിയിൽ പതിച്ചുകൊടുക്കുന്ന സമയത്തുള്ളതോ അതിനുശേഷം ഉണ്ടാകുന്നതോ ആയ അങ്ങനെയുള്ള എല്ലാ വൃക്ഷങ്ങളും സംരക്ഷിക്കാൻ പതിച്ചുകിട്ടിയെ ആൾ ബാധ്യസ്ഥ്നായിരിക്കുന്നതുമാണ്."
5. The reference in the above extract is about trees standing in the property assigned in favour of petitioner's father and specifically referred to in the Schedule of Annexure 3. The learned Government Pleader attempted to read the above disjunctively. The above has to be read conjunctively. True that Anjili trees were found cut from the property belonging to petitioner's father by Annexure 3 but for want of a reservation clause in Annexure 3 that ownership of those will be with the Government evenafter the assignment, the latter is unjustified in alleging that by the act of cutting of those trees, petitioner has committed an offence under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1995. A schedule is appended to Annexure 3. The names of trees referred to therein are found striken off and against the head description of trees, it is written "NIL". Therefore, it follows that while assigning land by Annexure 3 the Government did not -:5:- intend to reserve the ownership of any of the trees standing there in it's favour. Or in otherwords, petitioner's father was also conveyed with the ownership over all the trees standing in the property, at the time of it's assignment. Annexure 3 is dated 18.12.2009. The date of the alleged offence as per Annexure 1 is 03.09.2021 i.e. after 12 years of obtaining Patta of the land by petitioner's father in respect of the property wherefrom trees are allegedly cut. Without providing for a reservation in the schedule retaining the ownership in respect of the Anjili trees that Annexure 3 was issued. Or in otherwords, it appears from Annexure 3 that the Government had assigned not only the land, but also the trees standing therein to petitioner's father and from 2009 itself he has become the owner of those trees. Right to cut Anjili trees having not been taken away while issuing Annexure 3, the Government cannot turn round and contend that, the petitioner is guilty for an offence under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1995 when he cuts the Anjili trees. The ownership of the Anjili trees being vested with the father of the petitioner, to any stretch of imagination, the trial in the case for the offence alleged would not culminate in success. Continuation of the prosecution would -:6:- only prejudice the petitioner and it deserves to be quashed invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the result, Crl.M.C. is allowed and O.R.No.3/2021 and all further proceedings initiated against the petitioner following registration of it are quashed forthwith. The logs of trees seized in O.R.No.3/2021 shall be released to the petitioner forthwith.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE MJL -:7:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1618/2022 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY FOREST OFFENSE REPORT 3/2021 ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MAHAZAR IN OR NO 3/2021 ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA DATED 18.12.2009 ISSUED IN FORM 6 ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2009 (3) KHC 179 RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL TRUE COPY P A TO JUDGE