ORDER : This revision petition is filed by the complainant against the order of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Thrissur, dated 25.07.2018 in C.C. No.103/2009 C.C.No.103/2009 is a case instituted based on a complaint filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Thrissur alleging commission of offence by the respondents under Section 7 of Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non Forest Areas Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). The allegations in the complaint are that the accused four in numbers had cut and removed trees like “irul” and “kiny” from the property belonging to accused No.3 situated at Poovanchira-Ponchal in Pananchery Village without any permit or declaration, in contravention of the provision of the Act. It is alleged that the accused have committed the aforesaid offence and the complaint was launched before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Thrissur to initiate prosecution against them. All accused appeared before the court on receiving summons and they were enlarged on bail. The copies of the relevant records were furnished to them and thereafter trial was conducted. Two witnesses were examined. In the meanwhile accused No.3 was reported dead. On production of his death certificate the charge against accused No.3 was ordered as abated. In the meantime, the trial court has found the charge against other accused (A1, A2 and A4), totally groundless and accordingly, the proceedings against them were stopped and ordered to release them under Section 258 Cr.P.C. It is the said order that is taken up in challenge in the revision petition by the prosecution. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the order under challenge will not sustain for the reason that the proceedings against the accused, the respondents herein have been stopped under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor has invited this Court's attention to Section 258 Cr.P.C to contend that the provisions can be invoked to stop the proceedings initiated otherwise than on a complaint. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the proceedings in the case on hand being instituted based on a complaint, Section 258 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked by the court below to stop the proceedings. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that in view of the invocation of the provision wrongly, the order under challenge is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 3. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that in view of the invocation of the provision wrongly, the order under challenge is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 3. It is further contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the observation of the court below in the impugned order was that the charge against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are groundless and also will not sustain. According to him Section 7 of the Act defines the offence and also provides for the penalty liable to be imposed for the offence. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has invited the Court's attention to the words by which the section starts “whoever cuts, uproots, burns or otherwise destroys any tree other than sandalwood in violation of the provisions of this Act or transports any timber contravening the provisions of section 6 or files a false declaration shall.... ” Since the section starts with the word “whoever,” it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the same will takes in, the owner of the trees also. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, for the reason, the observation made by the court below in the impugned order that, being the owner of the vehicle the offence would not be attracted, is incorrect. 5. However, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the finding of the court below that a sanction as contemplated under Section 13 of the Act for a successful cognizance of the offence is lacking, is a correct one. Admittedly, sanction was not obtained and produced before the trial court by the prosecution. Section 12 of the Act provides for institution of the prosecution. It provides that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person without sanction being obtained from the Divisional Forest Officer. In the absence of a sanction, the prosecution already initiated against the respondents will not sustain legally. Therefore,as correctly observed by the court below, charge against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, who are the respondents in the revision on hand is groundless. 6. But, the proceedings ought not to have been stopped by the court below under Section 258 Cr.P.C, since the prosecution was instituted upon a complaint. As provided under Section 258 Cr.P.C, the said provision can be invoked to stop the proceedings only in a case instituted on a final report filed by the police. 6. But, the proceedings ought not to have been stopped by the court below under Section 258 Cr.P.C, since the prosecution was instituted upon a complaint. As provided under Section 258 Cr.P.C, the said provision can be invoked to stop the proceedings only in a case instituted on a final report filed by the police. Therefore, the order under challenge suffers for incorrect invocation of a provision of Cr.P.C. For reasons other than the one above, the order under challenge will sustain. 7. This Court in exercise of the powers of revision is able to correct the error, which is apparent on the face of the order. The court below is undoubtedly is incorrect in stopping the proceedings as against the respondents under Section 258 Cr.P.C. Therefore, impugned order to the extent it directs to stop the proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C is set aside. 8. This Court is convinced that other reasons stated by the court in the impugned order to hold the charge against the respondent in the revision groundless, will sustain. Therefore, the charge framed stands quashed and the respondents/accused are discharged. The Crl. Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.