This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioners seeking direction to be issued to the 2nd respondent to receive the application for compounding, if any, filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in that application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the 1st petitioner is the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing registration No. KL-29 A 9365 and the 2nd petitioner is the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing registration No. KL-37 9455 which were seized by the 2nd respondent alleging transportation of gravel without any valid documents which is an offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The vehicles were seized on 16.05.2014. It is a compoundable offence under Section 23A of the above said Act and Rule 60A of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The 2nd respondent is bound to accept the compounding petition, if any, filed and permit compounding in view of the provision of the above said Act and Rules. The 2nd respondent is not accepting the application. In similar cases this Court has passed Annexures A4 and A5 orders directing the Prosecution Officer to receive and pass appropriate orders. So the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:
“i) Direct the 2nd Respondent to accept compounding petition and to compound the offence in Annexure A3 and to release the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KL-29-A-9365 and the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KL-37-9455.”
3. Considering the nature of the relief claimed in the petition and also the documents produced by the petitioners, this Court feels that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is not necessary that a crime has to be registered for the purpose of filing an application for compounding and if the Prosecution Officer is satisfied that an offence has been committed and vehicle has been seized, he is bound to allow compounding in view of Section 23A of the above Act. Here he is not prepared to receive the application for compounding, though the petitioners are prepared for the same.
5. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. It is an admitted fact that the Tipper Lorry bearing registration Nos. KL-29 A 9365 and KL-37 9455, which were driven by the petitioners were seized by the 2nd respondent for transportation of gravel without any documents, which is an offence under Section 4 read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. Section 23A of the said Act says that the offence is compoundable one and the Prosecution Officer has to permit compounding, if the parties are prepared to compound the offence. The allegation of the petitioners was that the 2nd respondent is not prepared to receive the compounding petition filed by the petitioners. In Annexures A4 and A5 orders, this Court has in similar cases directed the Officer concerned to receive and dispose of the application for compounding in similar matters with in a time frame. So considering the circumstance, this Court feels that the same yardstick can be applied in this case also.
So the Crl.M.C. is disposed of as follows:
If the petitioners apply for compounding before the 2nd respondent, then the 2nd respondent is directed to receive the same and pass appropriate orders on that application, in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of filing of such application.
With the above direction and observation, the Crl.M.C. is disposed of. The petitioners are directed to produce this order along with the application to be filed requesting for compounding before the 2nd respondent.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
DSV/24/05