SUJITH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Director General of Prosecutions.

(2.) Examining the statutory provisions as contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, for short, the "Act", in the backdrop of decisions rendered by this Court touching different aspects of that Act, we see that the learned Judge, in making the order of reference, was justified in stating that the situation in hand needs further consideration because, in the ultimate analysis, it is also the requirement that S.20 of the Act is effectively implemented.

(3.) S.20 of the Act provides the penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. S.21 provides the penalty for abetment of any offence punishable under the Act. Taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act stands governed by S.24 and S.25. Statutory provisions authorizing various actions in terms of the provisions of the Act, either by the revenue authorities or by the criminal Courts, have been dealt with, quite elaborately, in different decisions; Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala, 2007 (4) KHC 142 : 2007 (4) KLT 473 : 2007 (2) KLD 450 : ILR 2007 (4) Ker. 221 : 2007 (3) KLJ 734, Moosakoya v. State of Kerala, 2008 (1) KHC 464 : 2008 (1) KLT 538 : 2008 (1) KLD 219 : ILR 2008 (1) Ker. 439 : 2008 CriLJ 2388, Ahammed Kutty v. State of Kerala, 2008 (1) KHC 868 : 2008 (1) KLT 1068 : 2008 (1) KLD 382 : 2008 (1) KLJ 809, Shoukathali v. Tahsildar, 2009 (1) KHC 771 : 2009 (1) KLT 640 : ILR 2009 (1) Ker. 699 and few others as well. Examining them, we do not find any conflict among those precedents on any issue relating to S.20, S.21, S.22, S.24 or 25 of the Act.