MOHANAN POTTI K.U v. THE STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
P6 order stands set aside
Provisions considered
- Kerala Forest Act, 1961 s. 68
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. When this Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, the respondent No.2 found out few other grounds which were not there in Ext.P4 order. I am of the view that since those were not raised in Ext.P4 order, those reasons cannot be a ground…
Judgment
that the first accused trespassed into the reserve forest, cut and removed sandal wood and sold two pieces to the petitioner for Rs.2,000/-.
The offences alleged against the petitioner are compoundable under Section 68 of the Act. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 compounding petition before the respondent No.2 who is the authority to compound the offence. The respondent No.2 rejected Ext.P2 as per Ext.P4 order. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P4 order before this Court in W.P.(C) No.37583/2023. This Court as per Ext.P5 judgment set aside Ext.P4 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The respondent No.2 after remand again dismissed Ext.P2 as per Ext.P6 order. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P6 order in this writ petition.
I have heard Sri.K.Rakesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.P.Sajan, the learned Special Government Pleader. W.P.(C) No. 8121/2024 ..3..
Section 68 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 gives power to forest officers not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests to compound an offence by accepting a sum of money by way of compensation. On such payment, accused person is entitled to be discharged and the seized property shall be released. The power under the section is not exercisable in the case of offences under Sections 62 and 65. The offences alleged against the petitioner are compoundable and the respondent No.2 is the competent authority to compound the offence. In Ext.P4 order, the reason shown for rejection of the compounding application is two fold. (i) the case has already been charge sheeted and (ii) the first accused is involved in similar cases. However, after the remand, over and above the above reasons, the respondent No.2 has shown few more reasons for rejecting the application for compounding.
The respondent No.2 was not correct in holding that there could be no composition of offence under Section 68 of the Act when the case is pending before the criminal court. There is nothing in Section 68 of the Act which takes away the power of the officer concerned to compound the offence even when the case is pending before a court. The only requirement is that in case the offence is compounded, the officer compounding the offence has to give a report to the court where the case is pending and on such report W.P.(C) No. 8121/2024 ..4.. being received, the case is to be closed and the accused if he is in custody is to be discharged (Mathew v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 1]). Thus, the first objection raised in Ext.P4 will not stand. The fact that the first accused is involved in other similar cases is not a ground to deny the benefit of compounding to the petitioner. Hence, both grounds stated in Ext.P4 must fail.
It is settled that the exercise of power under Section 68 of the Act, which allows for compounding for forest offences, must be judicially exercised, considering the factors such as the gravity of the offence, the loss caused to the Government and other relevant circumstances, if any (See Rakesh @ Tattu v. the State of Madhya Pradesh and others [(2020) 17 SCC 190].
Operative part
When this Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, the respondent No.2 found out few other grounds which were not there in Ext.P4 order. I am of the view that since those were not raised in Ext.P4 order, those reasons cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of compounding to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 ought to have exercised the power under Section 68 of the Act in a judicious manner. I am of the view that Ext.P6 order is vitiated by non exercise of discretion in judicious manner. Hence, W.P.(C) No. 8121/2024 ..5.. Ext.P6 order stands set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgement and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. APA Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE W.P.(C) No. 8121/2024 ..6.. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8121/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPOUNDING PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 4-8-2023 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4-8-2023 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-09-2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT P2 COMPOUNDING PETITION EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C).NO.37583/2023 DATED 14-11-2023 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-1-2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: P6 order stands set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Forest Act, 1961 — s. 68.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.