Karnataka High Court
Ganapati Gopalkrishna Hegde vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2023
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 102295 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102295 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. GANAPATI GOPALKRISHNA HEGDE,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSIENSS,
R/O: ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE,
KUMTA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
2. SRIRAM GOPALKRISHNA HEGDE,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSIENSS,
R/O: ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE,
KUMTA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
3. RUPA W/O. MAHESH BHAT,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSIENSS,
Digitally signed by
R/O: ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE,
CHANDRASHEKAR
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
KUMTA TALUK,
KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.06.27
14:45:36 -0700 UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
-2-
CRL.P No. 102295 of 2019
2. SHRI. RAJESH D.S.
GEOLOGIST, AGE: 43 YEARS,
THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
MINES AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
KARWAR-581301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO 1) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
29.08.2019 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, KUMTA, IN P.C.NO.273/2018
(NOW NUMBERED C.C.NO.719/2019) OF TAKING COGNIZANCE
AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOS.2, 3, 4/ PETITIONERS FOR
VIOLATION OF SECTION 4(1) OF THE MINES AND MINERALS
(DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 PUNISHABLE
U/S 21 OF THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND
REGULATION) ACT, 1957 AND THEREBY ISSUING NON-
BAILABLE WARRANT AGAINST THE PETITIONER AT THE FIRST
INSTANCE. 2) QUASHING THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.719/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC COURT, KUMTA AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.P No. 102295 of 2019
ORDER
Heard Shri. Prashant F. Goudar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Gover nment Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the records.
2. The present petition is filed und er Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-
"Whe refore, it i s most humbl y prayed that an o rder be kindl y pass ed:
i. Quashing th e orde r d ate d 29.08.2019 pro duc ed vide Annexure-J pass ed by the Prin cipal Ci vil J udge and JMFC, Ku mta i n P.C. No.273/2018 (Now nu mbered C.C . No.719/2019) of taking cognizance agains t the Accused No s. 2, 3, 4 /petiti oners fo r viol atio n of Section 4( 1) of the Mi nes and Mi nerals, 1957 pu ni shable unde r S ection 21 of the Mines an d Mi nerals ( Devel opment and Regulation ) Ac t, 1957; and th er eby issui ng Non- Bai labl e Warran t ag ainst th e Petiti oner at the firs t i nstance.
ii. Quashi ng th e fu rth er proc eedin gs i n C.C. No.719/2019 pen ding on the f ile of the -4- CRL.P No. 102295 of 2019 Prin cipal Ci vil Judge and J.M.F .C. Kumta as ag ains t th e Peti tio ners.
iii . Grantin g such other rel ief/ s whi ch this Hon'ble Court deems f it i n the interest of jus tice."
3. Brief facts of the case are as und er :-
A private complaint came to be filed by the Geologis t Karwar by name Rajendra D. S., against the petiti oners and one more p erson.
4. Gist of the private complaint reveal that in the land belonging to the petitioner s, there was a illegal mining activity inasmuch as 'KEMPU KALLU' (laterite stone). On raiding the said place, he found two vehicles. Out of them one is a earth mover having a registration No.KA-47-M-6660 and another one is a mini lorry TATA 407 bearing registration No.KA-20- C-4709. The head of the raid party has also noticed th at after mi ning the laterite stone, unusable laterite stone pieces were found on the spot. The sei zed vehicles were produced before the -5- CRL.P No. 102295 of 2019 jurisdictional Magistrate and the owners of the said vehicles appeared before the Court and pleaded guilty and paid the fine and got released the vehicles. The peti tioners challenged the proceedings. Therefore entire records from the office of th e complainant and revenue records pertaining to the place of incident were summoned before learned Trial Magistrate. However there was no co-operation on behalf of the revenue authorities resulting in issue of sh ow cause notice to the jurisdictional Tahasildar and ultimately the Tahasildar appeared and provided the neces sary revenue docu ments establishi ng the ownership of the place of incident which is in the name of the petitioner s herein. Thereafter, sworn sta tement was rec orded and based on the material available on records, learned Trial Magistrate by order dated
29. 08.2019, took cognizance of the offences under Section 4(1) of the MMDR Act punishable under Section 21 of th e said act and p roceeded agains t the -6- CRL.P No. 102295 of 2019 petitioner by issuing the process. Said order is under challeng e before this Court.
5. Reiterating the grounds urg ed in the petition, Shri. Prashant F. Goudar, learned cou nsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in the absence of sei zure of single laterite stone set to have been mined in the land belongi ng to the petitioner s, continuation of the proceedings before learned Trial Magistrate is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore s ought for allowing the petition.
6. Per c ontra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the grounds urged in the petition by con tending that the fact of seizure of two vehicles is not in dispute. So also, the g eologist noticing the useless laterite stone pieces on the spot is not in dispute. As such, whether at all the laterite stone was actually mined in the place of accident cannot be decided by this Court at this stage by holding a mini trial. She further contended that fact of the -7- CRL.P No. 102295 of 2019 vehicle owners compounding the offence is a relevant factor while appreciating the c ontentions of the parties. These compounding of the offences by the own ers of lorry and JCB vehicles, pri ma facie esta blished that there was mining activity carried on in the place of incident which is admittedly belonging to the petitioner herein as per the revenue records produced before the Trial Court and the same ha s been properly ap preciated by learned Trial Magistrate before taking cognizance as against the petitioner s are concerned an d thus soug ht for dismissal of the petition.
7. Taking note of all these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion and that it is for the petitioners to prove their defence before learned Trial Magistrate in the trial and g et a finding recorded that petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them.
8. Reserving such liberty for the petitioners and considering the grounds urged in the petition -8- CRL.P No. 102295 of 2019 which are hardly sufficient to quash the pending criminal proceedings, the following order is passed.
ORDE R Admission declined. Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30