Kerala HC refuses stay in Muttil tree-felling cheating case

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday declined to stall the cheating case linked to the Muttil tree-felling controversy, handing a setback to the Augustine brothers. Justice C.S. Dias dismissed their petition, which had sought a stay on trial proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chottanikkara, until a final report was filed in a separate case pending at Sulthan Bathery in Wayanad.

The High Court instead directed the Chottanikkara court to begin proceedings from September 22 and to dispose of the matter within six months.

Two cases lie at the centre of the dispute. The Forest Department registered one against the brothers before the Sulthan Bathery court over the alleged illegal felling of rosewood trees in Muttil South Village. The second arose from a complaint by M.M. Aliyar, proprietor of Malabar Timber Industries, who alleged that the brothers defrauded him by offering to sell timber worth ₹1.4 crore while claiming all necessary permissions were in place.

The Director General of Prosecution, T.A. Asaf Ali, had earlier told the court that the investigation in the Sulthan Bathery matter was complete. The interim stay was then lifted and the investigating officer was directed to file the final report.

Roji Augustine, along with his brothers Josekutty Augustine and Anto Augustine, contended that letting the Chottanikkara court proceed before the Sulthan Bathery final report was filed would cause them serious prejudice, since the two cases were intertwined. They also argued that the timber was not forest produce and that its seizure by the Forest Department was therefore not legally tenable.

The prosecution and Mr. Aliyar countered that the brothers were seeking to prolong the proceedings. It was pointed out that Roji Augustine was a history-sheeter facing accusations in 37 similar cases. Because the two alleged crimes involved distinct sets of offences, were registered by two different police stations and were pending before two different courts, the proceedings could move independently, they submitted.

The court held that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita provision meant to prevent parallel proceedings for the same offences could not be applied here. Even if the timber transactions formed the factual background of both cases, that would not make the offences identical, it observed.