Kerala High Court
Jayakumar vs State Of Kerala on 13 May, 2022
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. 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
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
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
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
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
