Karnataka High Court
Shri. Yallappa Ishwar Sali vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 July, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102088/2018
BETWEEN:
SHRI. YALLAPPA ISHWAR SALI
AGE:59 YRS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HABBALLI, DIST:BELGAUM.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SAUNDATTI POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI DIST.
NOW REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT:DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH
PROCEEDINGS IN P.C.NO.217/2018 ORDER DATED 27.09.2018
REGISTERED BY PSI SAUNDATTI FOR OFFENCE U/S 4(1)4(1A),
21, 22 OF MMDR ACT, MINES AND MINERALS REGULATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1957 IN SO FAR HERE AS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in P.C.No.217/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1) 4(1A), 21, 22 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation Development Act, 1957 (hereafter referred to as 'the MMDR Act', for short).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent though the case is registered from yesterday to today.
3. I have heard the learned HCGP for the respondent -State.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel in this petition is that, there is violation of Section 22 of the MMDR Act. The complaint has to be filed by a gazetted authorized Officer and nobody can file the complaint. It is contended that the complaint has been filed by PSI, Savadatti Police Station and as :3: such, there is violation of Section 22 of the MMDR Act. On these grounds it is prayed to quash the proceedings.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State vehemently argued and submitted that in view of the Notification dated 21.01.2014, bearing No.CI 21 MMN (2) 2014, the Police Sub- Inspector is an authorized Officer and has the authority to file the complaint. As specified at Sl.No.13 of the table provided in the aforesaid Notification, a Police Sub-Inspector of the concerned Police Station, within whose jurisdiction the offence takes place, is competent authority for the purpose of Sections 21 and 22 of the MMDR Act to file a complaint. There are no good grounds to allow the petition. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously considered the contents of the petition and other materials. As could be seen from the contents of the documents :4: produced, a private complaint has been filed before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Savadatti, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by the Police Sub-Inspector, Savadatti Police Station, alleging that he received the credible information and he, along with this staff and panchas, went to the spot; when they were keeping a watch at Hoolikatti cross, a tractor and trailor came there; when they signalled to stop the said tractor and trailor, the driver of the said tractor ran away from the said place; the tractor-trailor was found loaded with sand and that there was no permit or licence; the said tractor having the registration No.KA-25/TA-8587 and it was also having a temporary registration for the trailor. The complaint in the instant case is filed by the Police Sub-Inspector, Savadatti Police Station. As per Section 22 of the MMDR Act, the complaint has to be filed by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Government. In view of the notification dated 21.01.2014, the Police Sub-Inspector of the jurisdiction :5: where the offence has taken place has been authorized to file a complaint. In view of the said notification the contention of the petitioner that there is violation of Section 22 of the MMDR Act does not stand to any reason. The said contention does not have any force; the same is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected.
There is no merit in the petition, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab/Kms