Ivory Case Against Mohanlal : Kerala High Court Asks Magistrate To Decide Afresh State's Plea To Withdraw

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea filed by actor Mohanlal seeking to quash the JFCM Court, Perumbavoor order which dismissed the plea to withdraw the prosecution case against him pertaining to illegal possession of ivory. However, the Court has allowed the revision petition filed by the State Government against the order of the Magistrate Court, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Finding merit in the submission made by the counsels for the intervenors that the law ought to be equal for all, without any discrimination, the Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed:"...it has to be held that Law must be uniform to all, irrespective of their status as peasant, poor, middle class or higher class. Going by the settled principles as discussed in detail herein above, I don't think that the trial court addressed this question following the above principles and the trial court ventured the legality of the declaration as the sole basis, while dismissing the petition, which is the subject matter of dispute before the Division Bench of this Court".The case relates to the alleged illegal possession of ivory by the actor, due to which he was charged under the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which, the actor/1st accused had however denied, and had averred in his petition as having been obtained legally. It was alleged that the actor, at the time of the seizure, did not have a certificate of possession as mandated under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and that the act of the accused persons were sufficient to invoke penal consequences since they had contravened the provisions of the Act. During the pendency of the case before the JFCM Court, Perumbavoor, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 321 of Cr.P.C, to accord sanction to withdraw the case as against all the accused persons in the interest of justice. The application was however, rejected by the court below. The actor as well as the 2nd accused person, P.N. Krishnakumar had thus, approached the High Court challenging the order of the JFCM, Perumbavoor, which had dismissed the State Government's plea to withdraw prosecution proceedings against him in the alleged illegal possession of ivory case against him. The actor sought to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Magistrate, citing that the only ground relied upon by the Magistrate was that the validity of the certificate of ownership issued by the Government as per declaration made under Section 40(4) of the Wildlife Protection Act is still pending before the Kerala High Court in a Public Interest Litigation. It is noted that the 1st accused had approached the State Government by offering his willingness to declare possession of the two elephant tusks. Subsequently, in exercise of the special powers under Section 40(4) of the Act, 1972, the State Government issued notification and granted sanction after complying with the mandatory provisions under the Act, 1972. Thereafter, the legality of possession of the tusks had been accepted by the competent authority by issuing a certificate of ownership, and that the accused had claimed that the State Government could thus, not be allowed to revert from its promises. The impugned order order passed by the Magistrate in June 2022, had dismissed the application by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the prosecution case against the petitioner-accused.The State Government had also filed a revision petition challenging the order of the JFCM Court, Perumbavoor. It was contended before the High Court by Senior Advocate S.Sreekumar, that since the trial court dismissed the application based on the observation that the legality of the ownership certificate subsequently issued was a matter under consideration before the Division Bench in W.P.(C) 27187/2019, Court ought await disposal of the Writ Petition or to remand back the petition to the trial court for fresh consideration. On the other hand, it was argued by Dr.Abraham P.Meachinkara that the petition for withdrawal of the case filed by the ADGP revealed no grounds as stated by the Apex Court to do so, in terms of Section 321 Cr.P.C. It was further argued that the point of law pertaining tothis case is confined to Section 40 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.The Court was thus concerned with the question as to whether the court below went wrong in dismissing the application filed by the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case by invoking the power under Section 321 Cr.P.C.The Court in this case perused Section 321, and ascertained that while the said provision does not provide any grounds for seeking withdrawal, the principles set out in the judicial pronouncements such as State of Kerala v. K. Ajit & Ors. (2021) would govern the issue. "Therefore, valid grounds for seeking withdrawal shall be public policy, interest of administration, expediency to proceed with the prosecution for reasons of State and ...

Ivory Case Against Mohanlal : Kerala High Court Asks Magistrate To Decide Afresh State's Plea To Withdraw

Navya Benny

Tags