Madras High Court
The vs ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ on 5 October, 2012
Author: G.M.Akbar Ali
Bench: G.M.Akbar Ali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05/10/2012 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI Common Order in Crl.P.Nos.24276, 24085 and 24086 of 2012 Crl.P.No.24276 of 2012 ---------------------- P-1 K.SATHANADAM VS R-1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VILLUPURAM. CR.NO.19/2012 Crl.P.No.24085 of 2012 ---------------------- P-1 GOWTHAM SIGAMANI . P-2 K.S.RAJA MAHENDRAN . VS R-1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT. CR.NO.19/2012 Crl.P.No.24086 of 2012 ---------------------- P-1 K.PONMUDI . VS R-1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT. CR.NO.19/2012 ORDER
The petitioners, who have been arrayed as A.1, A.2A.4 and A.5, are alleged to have committed the following offences, with reference to Cr.No.19 of 2012 on the file of the respondent, seek anticipatory bail.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S.No Crl.O.P.No Petitioners Offences ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 24086 /2012 K. Ponmudi/A.1 4(1), 4(1A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957 and Rule 36A of TN Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1959, U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s 120(B), 353, 379, 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 24085 /2012 Gowtham Sigamani/A.2 4(1), 4(1A) and K.S.Raja Mahendran/A.4 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957 and Rule 36A of TN Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1959, U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s 120(B), 353, 379, 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3 24276/2012 K. Sathanadam/A.5 4(1), 4(1A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957 and Rule 36A of TN Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1959, U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s 120(B), 353, 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2. The above case was registered on a complaint given by the Tahsildar, Vanur, who had stated that on 22.9.2012, he was inspecting certain red sand quarrys in various survey numbers at Poothurai village and at that time, A.5 (Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.24276 of 2012) came along with others and stated that all those quarrys belonged to a former Minister, his son and relatives and questioned their surveying the area and prevented the Officers from discharging their duties.
3. It was further stated in the complaint that A.1 (the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.24086 of 2012) was the former Minister of Mines and Minerals during 2007 and by misusing his official powers, granted mining licence to his son and his close relatives and they have violated the licence conditions and also have excavated sand excessively and thereby caused loss of more than 28 crores to the Government.
4. The respondent, on registration of the case against five persons, has started investigation. The preliminary investigation revealed that during the year 2007, A.1 was holding additional portfolio of Mines and Minerals, issued licenses to his son, relatives and friends for red sand quarrying. Though the licence was issued to quarry only in the patta land, which belong to A.2, A.3 and A.4, they have been quarrying in the poramboke land also.
5. A.2 has taken in excess of 16556 lorry loads and has not paid Seigniorage fees causing revenue loss more than Rs.19 crores. Similarly, A.3 has taken in excess of 23,094 lorry loads and A.4 has taken in excess of 18513 lorry loads and thus caused revenue loss of more than Rs.10 crores.
6. An approximate estimate of loss caused so far has been arrived at Rs.28 crores. A.5, who is the Manager of all the five quarries, is in-charge of day today business. A.1, being the then Former Minister of Mines and Minerals, A.2, his son and A.3 and A.4, his close relative and friends and A.5, the Manager have been implicated for the above said offences. A.3 was already arrested and the others apprehending arrest, have filed the above petitions, seeking anticipatory bail.
7. Mr.S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr.A. Sasidharan in Crl.O.P.No.24085/2012 and Mr.Thirunavukarasu in Crl.O.P.No.24086 of 2012, learned counsel appearing for A.1, A.2 and A.4, would submit that A.2 and A.4 have been issued with licence by the District Administration in their patta land and they have been quarrying during the licence period in accordance with the licence conditions and so far there is no complaint against them.
8. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that a show cause notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional officer, Villupuram on 19.4.2012 and A.2 to A.4 have given suitable reply and such being the case, suddenly, a complaint was obtained from the Tahsildar only with the political motive and the case has been registered.
9. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that there is no irregularity or misuse of powers in granting of licence and A.1, who is the former Minister, has been unnecessarily dragged in. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that there is no violation of licence conditions and the excavation of sand was within the limit and Seigniorage fee was already paid to the Government and the quarrying was also stopped.
10. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that registering a complaint is nothing but a political vendetta and therefore, the rights of the individuals have to be protected.
11. Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior counsel, appearing for Mr.E.C.Ramesh for A.5 would submit that even according to the complaint, it is stated that A.5 had only questioned the officers who came for inspection and nothing else. There is no overtact or allegation against A.5 and none of the offences mentioned in the FIR would be attracted towards him.
12. The learned Senior counsel pointed out that even assuming that A.5 had prevented the officers from discharging their duties, an offence under Sec.353 IPC is punishable for two years and it is also bailable.
13. On the other hand, Mr.A. Navaneetha Kirshnan, learned Advocate General, while strongly opposing the granting of pre-arrest bail, submitted that A.1 was the former Minister for Mines and Minerals; licence for quarrying of red soils was granted to his son/A.2 and A.3 and A.4, who are his close relatives. There were five quarries and A.5 was managing all the quarries.
14. The learned Advocate General pointed out that though quarrying was permitted in the patta land there were gross violations as follows:
i) violation of permit conditions
ii) violation of licence conditions by way of excessive quarrying
iii) unauthorised quarrying in the poramboke land
iv) quarrying of red soil without paying seignarage fees
v) quarrying red soil in the restricted area where over-head high tension electric wires were passing
vi) voilation of license condition by quarring more than 90 feet depth
vii) excavation beyond the permissible limit
15. The learned Advocate General pointed out that A.1, who was the former Minister for Mines and Minerals, had conspired with the other accused and granted licence to his son/A.2 and to his relatives and friends and thereby obtained wrongful gain and caused huge revenue loss to the Government. Therefore, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act will apply.
16. The learned Advocate General further pointed out that the red soil is a minor mineral and it is a Natural Resource which has been quarried at the depth of more than 90 feet, unmindful of the adverse effects to the ecological system and they have also damaged the natural cart track and endangered the electric towers which were erected for carrying high tension electricity.
17. The learned Advocate General further submitted that it is not an ordinary case of theft but causing revenue loss to the Government to the tune of crores of rupees and a wrongful gain obtained by the accused.
18. Heard the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
19. A former Minister for Mines and Minerals, his son, son's close relative and friends are alleged to have committed the above said offences. It is admitted that A.2 to A.4 were granted quarrying licence during 2007 in their patta land. Violation of any licence would be governed under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and TN Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1959. However, they are alleged to have committed an offence under Secs.379, 406,420 r/w 120-B IPC and also u/s 13(2)r/w13(1)(d) of PC Act.
20. According to the learned Senior Counsel, who appeared for A.1, A.2 and A.4, the former Minister/A.1 has nothing to do with granting of licence or quarrying except that he happened to be the father of A.2. The further contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that licence had been granted by the District Administration to quarry in the patta land and in the year 2011, licence has been surrendered and there was no complaint on any official and all of a sudden, a case has been registered only due to political motive.
21. There is no illegal sand quarrying and even for the show cause notice issued under the Act and Rules, suitable reply has been given. According to A.5, he has nothing to do with the quarries.
22. In ordinary circumstances, the present case would fall under violation of certain provisions of Mines and Minerals Act and TN Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1959. If there is any excess or illegal quarrying or quarring without paying the Seigniorage fees to the Government, an offence under Sec.379 would be attracted.
23. But what is very disturbing in the entire case is that A.1 was the former Minister for Mines and Minerals during 2007, A.2 his son, A.3 and A.4 close relative and friends of A.2 were granted licence. The photographs produced by the prosecution would show that an alarming amount of mining was done unmindful of the public cart track and endangering the high tension electric tower and high tension wires erected there. Not only that, the Natural Rresources of Mother Earth have been devoured with greed which is a crime committed against her. The preliminary inspection would show revenue loss of more than 28 crores which means a wrongful gain to the licencees.
24. When the father was the Minister for Mines and minerals and when the son, his relative and friends were granted licence and the preliminary investigation shows crores of rupees of revenue loss to the Government, the gravity of the offence requires detailed investigation.
25. In a case of anticipatory bail, This court is guided by the well settled princples and the following factors have to be considered:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
26. If we apply the above principles to the case on hand, this court has no hesitation to hold that the gravity of the offence is enormous and considering the status of the petitioners, who are influential persons, that they may tamper with the witness and they may also abscond.
27. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, it is not an ordinary case of theft of soil, but mindless exploitation of the natural resources for wrongful gain. The case has been registered only on 23.9.2012. Hardly 12 days have passed and the investigation is only at the preliminary level and granting of pre-arrest bail will cause prejudice to the prosecution and also hamper the investigation.
28. For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners and all the petitions are dismissed.
sr