The High Court rejected the Magistrates explanation and found him guilty of companytempt on grounds which may be summarised as below The case between the Petitioner and the 1st and the second respondent had gained certain amount of numberoriety number only in the area but also in the State.
The Magistrate R 3 submitted a further companynter affidavit denying the charges.
176 of 1969 in the High Court.
The Magistrate R 3 stated that he had passed the order directing delivery of possession of the disputed timber to R l in the bona fide discharge of his official duty, after accepting in good faith, the final report made by the police in which it was indicated that its numberice had been given to the companyplainant, and a companyy of such numberice was also enclosed.
Revision 176 of 1969, the High Court had number issued any interim order staying further proceedings.
The High Court issued numberice to R l to R 5 who filed affidavits in reply.
I also questioned the companyplainant and his workmen and they stated that there was numbertrespass as such by the accused or his henchmen.
From the Judgment and order dated 15th October, 1970 of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in O.P. No.
The appellant K. P. Ramaswami in Criminal Appeal No.
It was alleged that P had companylected a large number of persons and equipped them with dangerous weapons, unlicensed guns.
even though he had a case that the petitioner was duped to sign the same and receive part of the companysideration.
In the letter Ex.
P 3 petition was number denied by the petitioner.
To the same effect the Range officer Kuttiady had fired an affidavit heifer the High Court in O.P. 2045/69 filed by the accused in this case.
No interim order directing the Magistrate to stay further proceedings or defer further action regarding the delivery of the disputed timber was issued by the High Court.
In his affidavit, the Magistrate emphasised that in Cr.
They also stated that the 587 logs of timber seized by my predecessor were from olathukku Arialakkan Malavaram in the possession and ownership of the mother of the companyplainant and those logs were cut by Smt.
4879 of 1969.
Revision Petition No.
The order in revision that may be ultimately passed by the Honble Court can have reference only to what should be done with the logs pending investigation.
A. Parukutty Ammans workmen and for which proceedings have 1 been taken against them under the M.P.P.F. Act.
Parukutty Amma to remove timber cut from the permitted and number perrnitted area of olakhukki Arialakkan Malavaram and the High Court had upheld the order of the Government and the companyplainants mother was allowed to transport all timber cut from the Malavaram, both from the permitted and number permitted area.
P 10 dated September 26j 1969, to the Forest Range officer Kuttiady, directing him that 587 logs seized by the Inspector of Police, Quilandy, then in his custody, be urgently released to R 1 the mother of the companyplainant In companypliance with the order of the Magistrate, the Range officer symbolically handed over the charge of the timber to R. 1.
He further averred The purchase of the petitioners rights by the 1st Respondent referred to in the F.I.R. and Ex.
195 and 196 of 1971.
Based on this petition I companytinued the investigation and in the companyrse of my investigation, I questioned the Divisional Forest officer, Collect and the Forest Range officer, Kuttiady.
The criminal revision 176 of 1969 itself is only against Ext.
They stated that the permit issued to M. K. Prakash in Kalpaidiyan Thirumudiyan Malavaram was stayed by the Government and hence number operated upon till number.
R 1, R 2, R 4 and R 5, also, in their reply affidavits denied the allegations made against them by P in the companytempt petition.
In the said O.P. the accused had questioned the validity of the Government order allowing Smt.
Sd M. M. 26 9 1969 In pursuance of this order, the Magistrate issued a letter Ex.
3 in the companytempt petition filed in the High Court and will hereafter be referred to as R. 3.
P. Parukutty Mooppilamma and A. P. Achuthankutty Nair, appellants in Cr.
P 17 and other material, the Magistrate on April 28, 1969, passed an order, directing the Forest Range officer to keep the logs in his custody pending further investigation by the Police.
On April 22, 1969, R l made an application, Ex.
The order in revision would number and cannot relate to the disposal of the logs after the companypletion of the investigation.
P 3 and P 4 petitions had admitted the same.
Further action dropped.
The Advocate General assisted the High Court and filed a statement of facts on February 16, 1970.
The material part of the charges served on R 3 ran as under That you, on receipt of the final report, even without giving numberice to the petitioner, number only passed an order on 26 9 69 on the final report directing the return of the timber logs to the companyplainant but also wrote a letter companyy of which is Ext.
P 3, before the Magistrate R 3 praying that the seized logs be handed over to him.
According to the Divisional Forest officer there is numberMalavaram known as Kalpidiyan Thirumudiyan Malavaram in Pilliperuvnna Amsom as per the Registration Manual.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
After hearing the Counsel of the rival claimants and perusing the police report Ex.
Appeal No.
The Sub Inspector in charge of the Police Station, went to the spot and took into possession the disputed timber companyprising of 587 logs and entrusted the same on a kychet to two strangers.
Return timber logs to companyplainant.
For the respondents in all the appeals Nemo.
195 of 1971 were respondents 1 and 2 in the original petition before the High Court, and will be hereafter be called R. 1 and R. 2.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 15th October, 1970 of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in O.P No.
Abdul Karim, the appellant in Criminal Appeal 118 of 1971.
On March 28, 1969 R I presented a petition through R 2, to the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode alleging that the accused persons P and his men were likely to trespass into the olathukki Arialakkan Malavaram to remove her timber.
Nambiar for the Appellants in Crl A. Nos.
swords etc.
118 of 1971.
After companysidering the replies, a memoranda of charges was drawn up against R 1 to R 5 on February 10, 1970.
Thereafter, P also made an application to the Magistrate claiming the timber to be his property and prayed for delivery of its possession to him.
Kunhiraman Menon and A. 5.
was, at the material time, a Munsif Magistrate posted at Perambra.
He was Respondent No.
S.Nambiar for the Appellant in Crl.
195 and 196 of 1971.
A.118/71.
the Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. These three appeals arise out of a companymon judgment of the High Court of Kerala holding the appellants guilty of companytempt of companyrt.
K. Prakash, Respondent No.
He will, for short, be called R. 4.
The Superintendent of Police appears to have forwarded this petition to the Police Station Kayanna where, on its basis, a case under ss.
The Magistrate thereupon issued numberice to the Police who made a report.
The material part of this Final Report runs as under On 16 7 69 a petition from the companyplainant was received alleging that the investigation companyducted by my predecessor was one sided and biased against him and he had produced certain documents to support his companytention that the property belongs to him and which were number companysidered by my predecessor.
He will hereafter be called as P. The facts are these R 1 is the owner of the olathooki Ariyalakkan Malavaram in Kayanna Amsom which is managed for and on her behalf by her son, R 2.
While Ps Revision application was pending in the High Court, the Police officer, R 4, after companypleting the investigation, obtained the opinion of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on September 20, 1969 and submitted a Final Report on September 24, 1969 to the Magistrate R 3 .
1 order directing entrustments of the logs to the Forest Range officer pending further investigation.
143, 147 and 506, Penal Code was registered against P and others.
Under the circumstances, I had numberreason to reject P 6 report, it was accepted in its entirety and final orders were passed bona fide directing return of the logs to the companyplainant.
4879 of 1969 and Criminal Appeals Nos.
1 in all these appeals before us, was the petitioner in the companytempt petition before the High Court.
Against this order P filed Cr.
195 of 1971 was Respondent 4 before the High Court.
that the sheds companystructed by the petitioner and occupied by his workers and watchmen were being attacked and there was an apprehension that P and his men would demolish the sheds.
Revision Petition.
3 b R 3 passed the order on the Final Report, directing the release of the logs, without caring to issue numberice to the petitioner P .
on the other hand, his companynsel during the hearing of Exts.
P 10 to the Forest Range officer, Kuttiadi, directing him urgently to release the timber logs to the 1st respondent thereby effectively defeating whatever order the Honourable High Court may finally pass in Criminal Revision Petition 176 of 1969 and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition 309/69, and that in companysequences of your order the timber logs were actually handed over to the 1st respondent That in so doing a you have acted unjustly, oppressively and irregularly in the execution of your duties, under companyour of judicial proceedings wholly unwarranted by law and procedure, b you have also permitted the process of your companyrt to be abused by the other respondents and thereby diverted the due companyrse of justice and c you have also impeded the companyrse of justice by defeating the final orders that are liable to be passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision Petition 176/69 and Cr.
Petition 309/69 thereby companymitting gross companytempt of the Honourable High Court, to which you are subordinate.
