Chandrabose v. Sub Inspector of Police, Noornad Police Station

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-06-18
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of. The court directs the concerned authorities to accept compounding applications and pass appropriate orders in terms of Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police (2013 (1) KLT 600). If relief is declined, interim custody of the vehicle may be released on payment of Rs.25,000 with an undertaking not to alienate the vehicle and to produce it as required while the proceedings proceed.
Final Disposition: Disposed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Chandrabose, Cheruvamparampil, Pallickal P.O., Kattanam, Mavelikkara, Alappuzha

Respondents

Sub Inspector of Police, Noornad Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT. ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI. K.C.VINCENT

Case Synopsis & Summary

Chandrabose challenges the seizure of his tipper lorry in a matter arising under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, seeking compounding of the offences and interim release of the vehicle. The petitioner’s vehicle, KL-31-E/795, was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Noornad Police Station, under circumstances involving transport of sand/earth without a valid pass. The core issue is whether the offences can be compounded under the statutory framework and whether the authorities can release the vehicle upon payment of a compounding sum. The court explains that Section 23A of the Act and Rule 60A of the Rules permit compounding, with the maximum penalties identified: Rs.5,000 for offences under the Rules and Rs.25,000 for offences under the Act, particularly where Section 4(1A) applies for transporting sand without sanction. The court notes repeated directions in related matters to allow interim custody of the vehicle on payment of Rs.25,000 and to consider compounding applications. A pivotal question concerns whether prosecution may continue after compounding; the court cites 2013 (1) KLT 600 (Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police), which holds that no further prosecution follows a valid compounding. Accordingly, the court directs the authorities to accept compounding applications and to pass orders in terms of Digil forthwith, with mechanisms for interim release if relief is not granted, disposing of the writ petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967Section 23A (Act)Rule 60A (Rules)Section 4(1A)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner urged compounding of the offences under the Mines and Minerals Act and Kerala Rules and sought release of his seized vehicle, relying on Section 23A of the Act and Rule 60A of the Rules, which permit compounding subject to prescribed penalties. He cited prior orders and pressed for consideration of the compounding applications and interim custody on payment of Rs.25,000, with appropriate undertakings.

Contentions of Respondents

Not expressly detailed in the judgment; the quantum of the court’s analysis centers on the statutory framework and the authorities’ duty to consider compounding under Digil.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police	2013 (1) KLT 600	Positive	Held that once the offence is compounded, there cannot be any further prosecution proceedings.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/28TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 15298 of 2013 (J)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER :** **--------------------------** **CHANDRABOSE, CHERUVAMPARAMPIL, PALLICKAL P.O., KATTANAM, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA.** ## **BY ADV. SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW** **RESPONDENT :** **----------------------------** **SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, NOORNAD-690 504.** **BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **WP(C).No. 15298 of 2013 (J) ----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF TIPPER LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-31-E-795 EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE SEIZURE OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** .............................................................................. ## **W.P.(C)No. 15298 OF 2013** ......................................................................... **Dated this the 18[th] June, 2013** ## **J U D G M E N T** The issue involved in this case is, whether the petitioner who has been proceeded against in respect of the offences under the Mines and Mineral ( Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 is entitled to have the offence compounded in view of the desire expressed from his side in this regard. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The particulars of the petitioner, his vehicle/s and such other details are in the tabulated form as given below : |Name of the petitioners|Vehicle/s No.|Seized by| |---|---|---| |Chandrabose (Owner)|KL/31-E/795|The S.I. of Police, Noornad Police Station| 4. Unlike the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, there cannot be any **2** ## **W.P.(C)No. 15298 OF 2013** confiscation of the vehicles in respect of the offences under the Mines and Mineral ( Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 or the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. Section 23A of the 'Act and Rule 60A of the Rules enable the parties to have the offence compounded. The Rules specifically stipulate that any offence under the Rules can be compounded subject to the satisfaction of the maximum fine prescribed under the Rules, which is stated as Rs.5,000/-. But in respect of the transportation of sand/earth without any valid pass/sanction, it is stated as an offence under the 'Act' itself by virtue of the incorporation of Section 4(1A), for which separate penalty is provided under the Act itself. The maximum fine in respect of such offence prescribed under the Act is stated as Rs. 25,000/-. It was in the said circumstance, that this Court was passing various orders in connected similar matters enabling the concerned petitioners to have the interim custody of the vehicle released on satisfaction of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and also by directing the concerned respondent to consider the application for compounding, if any. **3** ## **W.P.(C)No. 15298 OF 2013** 5. A question arose before this Court as to whether the prosecution proceedings could be pursued further, once the offence is compounded in accordance with the relevant provisions. This issue has already been considered and decided by this Court in **2013 (1) KLT 600 ( Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police)** , holding that, once the offence is compounded, there cannot be any further prosecution proceedings. 6. The directions given as per the above verdict is extracted below : “i) In cases where compounding applications have been acted upon as per the interim orders passed by this Court and the offences have been compounded and compounding fees have been collected and vehicles have been released, it is declared that no further proceedings can be taken for confiscation of the vehicles; ii) In cases where complaints have been filed before the Court but compounding applications have been entertained and offences have been compounded, appropriate applications will be filed before the Courts and the concerned Courts will pass appropriate orders in the matter with regard to the closure of the cases pending; iii) In cases where compounding applications are yet to be filed by the parties concerned, it is open to them to file ## **W.P.(C)No. 15298 OF 2013** ## **4** applications which will be dealt with by the officer concerned in accordance with law and they will be free to pass appropriate orders on it. If no applications are filed within a period of three weeks from today and if compounding is not being allowed, it is open to the concerned officers to complete the procedures as enjoined by law.” 7. It is stated that the concerned Sub Inspector/ competent authority has not accepted the application filed in this regard. In view of the law declared as mentioned herein before, there will be a direction to the concerned respondent to accept the applications filed by the petitioner to compound the offence; which shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in **2013 (1) KLT 600 ( Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police)** forthwith. 8. If for any reason, the relief sought for is declined, intending to proceed with the prosecution steps, interim custody of the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on satisfaction of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees twenty five thousand only) and on giving an undertaking that the vehicle will be produced as and when required; that the vehicle will not be alienated and that no **5** ## **W.P.(C)No. 15298 OF 2013** action will be pursued so as to diminish the value of the vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** lk **W.P.(C)No. 15298 OF 2013** **6**