IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT:

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

             WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1940

                                Crl.MC.No. 2845 of 2018


      M.C. NO. 01/2018 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT,THRISUR
                               ------------

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN M.C.


     KUNJHU MOHAMED,
     AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN,
     VADAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM DESOM &
     VILLAGE,
     KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.


     BY ADVS.SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A
             SMT.M.A.SULFIA
             SRI.K.M.ABDUL MAJEED

RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1.   THE STATE OF KERALA,
     REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2.   THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
     THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, AYYANTHOLE
     THRISSUR.

3.   BEENA SUNIL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,W/O. SUNIL KUMAR,
     KUMBALATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHIRUTHY P.O-680 703,
     EDATHIRUTHY VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK,
     THRISSUR DISTRICT.


        R1 & R2 BY SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA
        R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
     ON 13-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sdr/-
14.06.18
Crl.MC.No. 2845 of 2018 ()

                                       APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1       CONDITIONAL ORDER, DATED 04-01-2018 OF THE FIRST
                  RESPONDENT IN M.C 01/2018 ISSUED TO THE
                  PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A2       COPY OF COMPLAINT, DATED 29-12-2017 BY THE THIRD
                  RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT AS PER M.C
                  NO. 01/2018

ANNEXURE A3       COPY OF D& O LICENCE, DATED 29-11-2017, ISSUED BY
                  THE EDATHIRUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE
                  PETITIONER FOR RUNNING SERVICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A4       COPY OF CONSENT TO ESTABLISH SERVICE STATION,
                  DATED 18-08-2017,ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL
                  BOARD, THRISSUR TO THE PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A5       SANITARY CERTIFICATE, DATED 30-12-2017 ISSUED BY
                  THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, PHC CHAMAKKALA TO THE
                  PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A6       BUILDING PERMIT, DATED 07-08-2017 ISSUED BY THE
                  EDATHIRUTHY PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER

ANNEXURE A7       A COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER
                  HEREIN BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN M.C NO.
                  01/2018 ON ON 17-01-2018

ANNEXURE A8       A COPY OF FRESH D & O LICENCE, DATED 12-04-2018
                  ISSUED BY THE EDATHIRUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
                  TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE SERVICE STATION.

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES
---------------------


ANNEXURE R3(A)   A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 391/2018
                 IN O.S. 139/2018 DATED 09.02.2018

ANNEXURE R3(B)    A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN
                 O.S. NO. 139/2018

                                           /TRUE COPY/

                                           PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-
14.06.18

                 K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.
           ---------------------------------------------
                Crl.M.C. No.2845 of 2018
           ---------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 13th day of June, 2018


                            ORDER

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur which was initiated under Section 133 Cr.PC. The Sub Divisional Magistrate issued Annexure-A1 conditional order. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of Annexure-A2 complaint filed by the 3rd respondent. Annexures-A1 and A2 are sought to be quashed on the ground that with regard to the very same issue there are provisions in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and hence no proceedings can be initiated under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. 2845/18 -:2:-

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner the third respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Tata Tea Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1984 KLT 645) in support of his argument that Section 133 Cr.P.C. has been impliedly repealed by the provisions in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. This decision has been overruled in Krishna Panicker v. Appukuttan Nair (1993 (1) KLT 771. There is no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

Sd/-

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE vps 13/6 /True Copy/ PS to Judge