Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramakrishnaiah vs State By Madanayakanahalli Police on 28 February, 2017
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7894 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI RAMAKRISHNAIAH
S/O DUGGALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O KITTANNA HALLI,
DASANPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
PIN. NO-562123. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri: KESHAVA BHAT A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-1.
2. K.SUNANDA
DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, NADA OFFICE,
M.N.HALLI,
DASANAPURA (H),
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.PIN.562123.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL SPP)
2
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2134/2013
PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. C.J. AND JMFC,
NELAMANGALA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2134/2013 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nelamangala.
2. The respondent No.1 -Nelamangala Police registered a F.I.R. against the petitioner herein alleging commission of offences punishable under Rules 3, 42 and 43 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994, sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act 1981 and section 379 of Indian Penal Code.
3
3. The material allegations leveled against the petitioner read as under:
¢£ÁAPÀ 12.06.2013gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 12.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁzÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£º À ½ À î ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸Àgº À z À £ ÀÝ ÀÄß QvÀ£ Û º À ½ À î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.47 & VqÉÃØ £Àº½ À î ¸À.£ÀA.80gÀ ¸ÀPÁðj eÁUÀz° À è F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnAÖ iÀÄ PÁ®A £ÀA.12gÀ°è PÀAqÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj eÁUÀzÀ ªÀÄtÚ£ÀÄß §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀP æ ÀÈw ¸ËAzÀAiÀÄðªÀ£ÀÄß «gÀÆ¥ÀUÉƽ¹ rÃ¸É¯ï ¥ÀA¥ÀÄUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj ¤ÃgÀ£ÀÄß ºÁ¬Ä¹ CPÀª æ ÀÄ ªÀÄgÀ¼ÀÄ GvÀàwÛ ªÀiÁr £ÀUg À À ¥Àz æ ÃÉ ±ÀU½ À UÉ ¸ÁV¹ CPÀª æ ÀĪÁV ªÀÄgÀ¼ÀÄ zÀAzsÉ £Àq¸ É ÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ AÉ zÀÄ ¸Á-1gÀªg À ÀÄ ¸Á-2jAzÀ 10, 12gÀªg À ÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀª ë ÀÄ zÁ½ ªÀiÁr ¸À¼ Ü z À À°è rÃ¸É¯ï ªÉÆÃmÁgï & ¥ÀA¥ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CPÀª æ ÀÄ ªÀÄgÀ¼£ À ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄ¥ Û r À ¹gÀÄvÉAÛ vÀ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqs¥ À n À g Ö ÀÄvÉ.Û
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made against the 4 petitioner, on the face of it, do not attract any of the provisions invoked against the petitioner. In other words, the contention of the petitioner is that provisions of the Rules 3, 42 & 43 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1994 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. This contention, in my view, cannot be accepted. Rule 3 deals with quarrying lease or quarrying license. It reads as under:-
3. Quarrying to be under quarrying lease or quarrying Licence.-(1) No person shall undertake any quarrying operation in respect of any minor mineral in any land except under or in accordance with the terms and conditions of a quarrying lease (licence or quarrying permit) granted under these rules.
(2) No quarrying lease or (licence or quarrying permit) licence shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with these rules.
5. Rule 42 the aforesaid Rules prohibit transportation of minor minerals without license or permit. Further Rule 43 of the aforesaid Rules deals with check 5 posts and checking of minerals in transit. The allegations made in the complaint disclose that the petitioner was involved in filtering sand from the Government land and transporting the same to other cities. Therefore, it cannot be said that Rules 3, 42 and 43 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994 are not attracted in the present case.
6. However, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to prosecute a person for the alleged violations, section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 mandates that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.
7. In the instant case, the complaint in question has not been made by the authorized officer as required under section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development 6 and Regulation) Act, 1957. To that extent, the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Rules 3, 42 and 43 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994 are bad in law and therefore, cannot be sustained.
8. The other provisions invoked against the petitioner are under sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act 1981. But Section 3 of this Act deals with special provision regarding bail and Section 4 deals with the power of State Government to impose collective fine. The allegations made in the Charge Sheet do not fall within any one of these sections. But that by itself cannot be a reason to quash proceedings, initiated under the provisions of this Act when the allegations are seen to make out the offences under other provisions of this Act. Therefore, it would be proper to leave it to the Magistrate to frame appropriate charges depending upon the material produced by the prosecution.
7
9. In so far as the offences registered under section 379 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this court in the case of MALLIKARJUNA H.M. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Petition No.6829/2014 and connected matters disposed of on 25.11.2014) wherein this court has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case reported in (2014) SCC ON LINE SC 672. In the above decision, this Court has extracted the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, the relevant portion of it reads as under:
69. However, there may be situation where a person without any lease or license or any authority enters into river and extracts sands, gravel and other minerals and remove or transport those minerals in a clandestine manner with an intent to remove dishonestly those minerals from the possession of the State, is liable to be punished for committing such offence under Sections 378 and 379 of the Penal Code.8
70. From a close reading of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section 378, IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients constituting the offence are different. The contravention of terms and conditions of mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of Section 4 of the Act is an offence punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravel and other minerals from the river, which is the property of the State, out of State's possession without the consent, constitute an offence of theft.
10. As the allegations made against the petitioner squarely fall within the ingredients of the said section, it cannot be said that the initiation of prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code is bad in law.
11. As a result, I proceed to pass the following order:-
The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.2134/2013 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil 9 Judge and J.M.F.C., Nelamangala only in so far as the alleged offences under Rules 3, 42 and 43 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994 is quashed.
The petition filed by the petitioner for quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.2134/2013 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nelamangala for the offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code and for the offences under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act 1981 is dismissed. Learned Magistrate shall frame appropriate charges against the petitioner depending upon the material produced by the Investigating Agency making out the offences under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act 1981 and for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code.
The petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss.