Kerala High Court
Ajith vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2025
2025:KER:81716
CRL.REV.PET NO. 78 OF 2007
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 78 OF 2007
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2006 IN Crl.A NO.56
OF 2005 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA IN
CC NO.60 OF 2002 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,RANNI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
1 AJITH
MEPURATHU HOUSE, PERUNADU.
2 PRASAD SO.DIVAKARAN
VALUKPARAMBIL HOUSE, PEZHUMPARA,, VADASSERIKARA.
BY ADV SHRI.S.SANTOSH KUMAR (PERUNAD)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT SEENA C, PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:81716
CRL.REV.PET NO. 78 OF 2007
2
ORDER
The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Ranni, and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) III,
Pathanamthitta, holding the petitioners guilty of commission of the
offence under Rule 58 of the Kerala Minor Minerals Concessions Rules,
1967, are under challenge in this revision filed by the accused in the
said case.
2. The prosecution is that on 02.04.2001 at about 9.00 pm,
the accused were found to have been transporting river sand in a mini
Lorry without any permit obtained from the competent authority. The
offence was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Perunad, who
registered the case, conducted the investigation, and laid the Final
Report in respect of the offences under Rule 58 of the Kerala Minor
Minerals Concessions Rules, 1967 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
3. Before the Trial Court, three witnesses were examined as
PW1 to PW3, and four documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P4 from
2025:KER:81716
CRL.REV.PET NO. 78 OF 2007
3
the part of the prosecution. The petitioners/accused did not choose to
adduce any defence evidence.
4. The learned Magistrate, after the evaluation of the aforesaid
evidence, found that the petitioners/accused committed the offence
punishable under Rule 58 of the Kerala Minor Minerals Concessions
Rules, 1967. However, they were acquitted of the offence under Section
379 IPC charged against them.
5. Though the matter was taken up on appeal, the Appellate
Court declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate.
The appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence
awarded by the learned Magistrate under Rule 58 of the Kerala Minor
Minerals Concessions Rules, 1967.
6. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts
below, the petitioners are here before this Court with this revision.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and
the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the
judgments rendered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, by
contending that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners
2025:KER:81716
CRL.REV.PET NO. 78 OF 2007
4
were vitiated due to the incompetence of the court to take cognizance
upon a Police Report with regard to the offence envisaged under Rule
58 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1967. By adverting to
Rule 59 of the said Rules, the learned counsel pointed out that the
cognizance of the offences punishable under the said Rules could be
taken only upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in
that behalf by the State Government or the competent authority. Thus,
it is contended that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on
the basis of the Final Report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police,
Perunad, is patently illegal, and hence the conviction and sentence
awarded by the court below, are liable to be set aside. Rule 59 of the
Kerala Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 1967 reads as follows:
"Rule 59. Cognizance of offence:- No court shall take
cognizance of any offence punishable under these rules, except upon
complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the
State Government or the competent authority. The name or the
designation of such person shall be published in the Gazette."
9. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that prosecution in
connection with the violation of the provisions of the Kerala Minor
Minerals Concessions Rules, 1967, has to be initiated by the person
2025:KER:81716
CRL.REV.PET NO. 78 OF 2007
5
authorised in that behalf by the State Government or the competent
authority, and that the courts are barred from taking cognizance of any
such offences, except upon a complaint preferred by the Authorised
Officers.
10. As far as the present case is concerned, the proceedings
were initiated by the learned Magistrate upon a Final Report filed by the
Sub Inspector of Police, Perunad, and hence it is apparent that the
aforesaid course adopted was in violation of Section 59 of the Kerala
Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 1967.
11. The learned Public Prosecutor, by referring to the
Government notification No.25073/K2/87/ID dated 3.10.1987, pointed
out that as per the aforesaid notification, the Police Officers of and
above the rank of Sub Inspectors in the State are authorised to prefer
complaints in writing in courts, in respect of the offences punishable
under the relevant provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
Development) Act, 1957. However, the aforesaid Government
notification would not come to the help of the prosecution in the case
on hand, since the cognizance has not been taken on any complaint in
2025:KER:81716
CRL.REV.PET NO. 78 OF 2007
6
writing, filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, but upon a Final Report
filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor invited my attention to the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay [2014
KHC 4558], wherein it has been held that in connection with
prosecution of offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957, there is no bar for the Magistrate in taking
cognizance of the offences under Section 378 IPC, even without a
complaint from the Authorised Officer under the Mines Act. The dictum
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision would
also not help the prosecution, since it is seen that the acquittal of the
petitioners under Section 379 IPC, has not been challenged by the
prosecution in appropriate proceedings. That being so, it is not possible
for this Court to consider in revision the aforesaid contention of the
prosecution that the offence under Section 379 IPC will be attracted in
the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case.
13. Since it is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the
case that the initiation of the prosecution proceedings against the
petitioners under Rule 58 of the Kerala Minor Minerals Concessions
2025:KER:81716
CRL.REV.PET NO. 78 OF 2007
7
Rules, 1967, has been vitiated from the very inception due to the
violation of the requirement of Rule 59 of the said Rules, the conviction
and sentence awarded by the courts below, cannot survive the scrutiny
of law. Needless to say, the prayer in this revision to set aside the
aforesaid verdicts of the courts below, deserves to be allowed.
In the result, the revision stands allowed. The judgment rendered
by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni in C.C.No.60/2002,
and that of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) III, Pathanamthitta,
in Crl.Appeal No.56/2005, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for
the commission of offence under Rule 58 of the Kerala Minor Minerals
Concessions Rules, 1967, are hereby quashed.
sd/
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
jm/
