Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddappa Belludi vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2017
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1216/2017
BETWEEN
SRI SIDDAPPA BELLUDI
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 52 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O BENAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
HONNALI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 217 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.L.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HONNALI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.159/2016
(C.C.NO.1027/2016) OF HONNALI POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 379 OF IPC AND
SEC.21 OF MINES AND MINERALS REGULATION OF
DEVELOPMENT ACT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Several petitions are filed in this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C, seeking enlargement of respective petitioners on anticipatory bail in Criminal Cases registered against them alleging commission of offences punishable under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ('the MMDR Act' for short) and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short). Since common question is involved, learned Counsel for the respective petitioner/s and the learned HCGP for the State have been heard at length in a batch of petitions.
2. The main order is kept in this petition. Identical petitions are disposed of with similar directions based on the reasons recorded in this petition.
3. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners in various writ petitions heard simultaneously have made following submissions:
3
i) that Police could not have usurped the jurisdiction of appropriate authority under the MMDR Act and registered an FIR alleging violation of Section 4(1A) of the MMDR Act;
ii) Section 379 of IPC could not have been invoked by the State as the mining activities are fully governed by a special statute namely, the MMDR Act;
iii) however, should there be any violation of Section 4(1A) of the MMDR Act, on conviction, maximum sentence which can be imposed under Section 21 of the said MMDR Act is five years and fine which may extend to Rupees Five Lakhs per hectare of land involved in illegal mining;
iv) the owners of the lands, owners of the vehicles and the drivers are all citizen having strong roots in the society. They would always be available for any enquiry or investigation;4
4. In support of their contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners in various petitions drew the attention of this Court to Section 4(1A) of the MMDR Act, which reads as follows:
"4(1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder."
By placing reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 03.09.2012 in Crl.P.No.11116/2012, they contended that Section 379 of IPC could not be invoked. It was argued that ex-facie, the complaint is not maintainable in law. Therefore, petitioner/s are entitled for protection from this Court against detention due to threatened arrest and consequential harassment. With these submissions, learned Counsel prayed for allowing the petitions and to grant anticipatory bail.
5
5. Opposing the bail petition, learned HCGP contended that the petitioners have attempted to steal the national wealth namely, sand, which belongs to the State. Therefore, the State is justified in invoking Section 379 of IPC. Section 4(1A) of the MMDR Act only contains a prohibition that no person shall transport or store any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder. Reliance was placed on paragraph No.72 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay reported in (2014)9 SCC 772 and it was argued that large quantum of wealth of the State is being surreptitiously mined and taken away illegally and therefore, the State has rightly filed the F.I.R. against the accused.
6. Replying to the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it was argued on behalf of the State that in the aforementioned judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the police are 6 empowered to register, investigate and submit a final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Since the property involved is a valuable mineral belonging to the State, petitioner/s are not entitled for an order granting anticipatory bail.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP & perused the material papers.
8. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, police can register a case and investigate the matter. The offences alleged against the petitioner/s is violation of Section 4(1A) of the MMDR Act and Section 379 of IPC. The maximum sentence of imprisonment, on conviction for violation of Section 4(1A) of the MMDR Act may extend to five years and fine which may extend to Rupees Five Lakhs per hectare of the land involved in illegal mining. Punishment for the offence under Section 379 of IPC may 7 extend upto three years or with fine or with both. Further an offence under Section 379 of IPC is a compoundable offence.
9. Generally, in cases of illegal mining, an FIR is registered either against the owner of the land involved in illegal mining/storing or the owner of the vehicle or it's driver involved in the illegal mining activity.
10. There is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/s that the owners of lands and vehicles will not flee from justice. So far as the drivers are concerned, they are admittedly employees under the owners of the respective vehicles.
11. Keeping in view, the fact that the punishment upon conviction in the offences alleged against the petitioner is not death or life imprisonment and that the cases are filed against the owners of the land or vehicle and the drivers, in my view, a petition for anticipatory bail 8 merits consideration and deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that:
(i) In the event of arrest or voluntary surrender of petitioner in Crime No.159/2016 before the jurisdictional Police or Magistrate on or before 31.03.2017, he shall be released on bail upon his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer;
(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer if so called upon for any further investigation and appear as and when called upon;
(iii) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or investigating officer;
(iv) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities; and 9
(v) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
Petition allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LB