(2015) 433 KLW 96
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
Crl.M.C. No.6716 of 2015 G
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2015
CC 83/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NEDUMANGAD CRIME NO. 10/2009 OF PARUTHIPALLY FOREST RANGE , KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3
SATHEESAN PILLAI, ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER (RETIRED) VARKALA GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.
BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED 1 & 2)
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA
O R D E R
The 3rd accused in CC No.83/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court for trial of Forest Offences, Nedumangadu, for the offences punishable under
Rule 5 (13) of the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2003 and Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,
has come up to get the proceedings against him in the case, quashed. The case of the petitioner is that the incident in question was relating to the period in which the petitioner was working as the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Varkala Group of Travancore Devaswom Board. The other accused in the case are mahouts.
2. According to the petitioner, when elephants are being taken out from the custody of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, the elephants are being entrusted to the Sub Group Officer concerned. It is the lookout of the Sub Group Officer to have the proper care and maintenance of the elephants during transit. In this particular case, the allegation is that while such an elephant was being taken out, hobbles with spikes as well as sharp edges were used to chain the elephant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 5(13) of the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2003.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Forests.
4. The said Rules are framed under Section 64 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. There is no challenge with regard to the validity of the Rules. At the same time, what is under challenge is that instead of the the Sub Group Officer, who ought to have been arraigned as an accused, the petitioner herein has been unnecessarily arraigned as the 3rd accused in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to Clause 14 of the Travancore Devaswom Manual. As per Clause 14(10), it is the duty of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner 'to see that elephants 'stationed' in his group are properly taken care of'. The argument is that only when the elephant is stationed in his group, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner has to take the responsibility of properly taking care of the elephants. When the elephants are taken out, it is the duty of the Sub Group Officer concerned, as per Clause 14(2)(e)(12) to see that livestock, especially elephants, if any, entrusted to their care, are properly taken care of.
5. On going through the Manual, it seems that when elephants are taken out from the care of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, it is the lookout of the concerned Sub Group Officer to take care of such elephants properly. Matters being so, it seems that the allegations against the petitioner are not legally sustainable and, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner herein in CC No.83/2012 of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court for trial of Forest Offences, Nedumangadu, are liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner herein in CC No.83/2012 of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court for trial of Forest Offences, Nedumangadu, are quashed.
Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)
aks/03/11 // True Copy // PA to Judge