Shameer and Ansar v. Sub Inspector of Police, East Kallada Police Station, Kollam District

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2013/7TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 12495 of 2013 (J)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **1. SHAMEER, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.SHAMSUDHEEN KUNJU, PANUTHARA KIZHAKKATHIL PALAKKAL THEVALAKKARA P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY KOLLAM (OWNER OF TIPPER LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO KL-23-E 4058)** **2. ANSAR, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.THAHAKUNJU, PANUTHARA KIZHAKKATHIL PALAKKAL THEVALAKKARA P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY KOLLAM (DRIVER OF TIPPER LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO KL-23 E 4058)** **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **----------------------------** **THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 690 517** **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **----------------------------** ## **WP(C).No. 12495 of 2013 (J)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 10-05-2013 PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 10-05-2013** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 9-11-2012 IN WPC NO 26528 OF 2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 27-03-2013 IN WPC NO 8688 OF 2013** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 15-03-2013 IN WPC NO 6481 OF 2012** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 11-05-2012 IN WPC NO 11203 OF 2012** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 05-06-2012 IN WPC NO 12878 OF 2012** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **NIL** //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE Shg/ ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No.12495 of 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28[th] day of May, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioners are the owner and driver of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-23-E-4508. The issue involved in this case is, whether the petitioners who have 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 are entitled to have the offence compounded in view of the desire expressed from their side in this regard. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Unlike the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, there cannot be any confiscation of the vehicle 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. W.P.(C)No.12495/2013 2 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. 4. 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 W.P.(C)No.12495/2013 3 ## is compounded, there cannot be any further prosecution proceedings. 5. 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 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.” After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioners are entitled to have similar relief. W.P.(C)No.12495/2013 4 6. In view of the law declared as mentioned herein before, there will be a direction to the concerned respondent to accept the application filed/to be filed by the petitioners 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. 7. 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 petitioners 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 action will be pursued so as to diminish the value of the vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings. The writ petitions is disposed of. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.12495/2013 5 W.P.(C)No.12495/2013 6 ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. W.P.(C)No.12495/2013 7