Karnataka High Court
Vijay Mahantesh Angadi vs The State Of Karnataka, on 22 November, 2010
Author: K.Govindarajulu
Bench: K.Govindarajulu
A. 5;,
IN THE HIGH COURT o1i9i{ARR.M*AK§§"
CIRCUIT BENCH AT'-DH:AI2WA'D_ " A
Dated this ihe 22n<:.aay af":x:o'ce:mbTc'§%'%»2{j1c
"
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIC£«:._'K,(;ovIN1jA1zAJ§JLU
Criminal Petitiori"No'.*7?'9.6/ 2010
BETWEEN:
VIJAY MAHANTE:s*s»IvANGAD1"*Q
AGE): 44 YEZARS, <:1=:«%1LgC::2:\:'1fu?<a '::.*:"«:>.1_;_2_,_:
R/<:>:5'rH CR,O;'»S,5j ~ « _
MR:THYUN5'AY:a"NAG;a.I2, _
HOSPET, BELLA-R";siVQ1$1'R:<:'r§' «. A " PETITIONER
(BY sags M :<;;:;.wgx:§, AD.\}'*.«}__ _
Mr: A
i. THE STATE <:>Fv~.KA;2NATAKA,
[REE BY rT;:_<:?1 GADIGANUR POLICE STATION
'<n~:R<;€.;GH ADE':--E'§3§ONAL SPF, HIGH CGURT,
' :<.A;:~:i"~?A';:<3;<A, BHARWAD.
'E'ZriE3«v§3;E;CiL[§:>€3EST,
CL?' DEPUTY DIRECTOR;
BEPAR.'§fMEN'§ MENES AND GEOLOGY;
HGSPBT, DIST: BELLARY. RESPGNDEINTS
' {BY __sR§;'1?:M.BANAKJAR, HCGP}
TEES CREEJHNAL PE'ZE'ETEQ?~E ES FELEB REES 482
"'i'7:}?;P'.AC.SEZEE{§§'€{} TO QUASH THE CQQEREZANCE T.f:§{E§ IN SQ
;3;4\,R 9:3 iRE§,g:%T;?Z~S Ti} THE PETETEONER C{}§'ECERNED EN
u_,v_{;;C»N':}.$£?j2GG8 PEER 'TEE {}??E§'$CE PE§E\§§SHAjBLE UNDER
2
SECTEQN 4g:}(A; (3% 21{=i'+){4Pa} GP' MEVIRD ACT, 195?, :>END:--;<;<:j,: ON
THE FILE: <3? $01212? GE' JMFC, SANDUR. .
mus CRIMINAL PETITEON COMING om F0R_;';agL$3as:::éjfsi:3és'~.
THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE; THE FOLLQWENG:
The accused in C.C.N0'S4':7j
in this case.
On ;25.05e2soe gfmags of
Mines Department. 16 lcsrries
mentianed th_e:~é'§_:i";n. fie: found with the
are. What": c;fl6:é;I;:er is said to the
sieeping some
person%"x%z€rc;: to load the ore. So they
loadeq. the 4c}V1*a,AS0 th'é agomplainant contends that such
without permit, is not in accordance with law
':<:0:'f.<:g§ tiér1<i'ng actien. Gadiganur Police have taken
2.2;: 'iihe v.__'i1*1vé-"sf;iga.i::'v:>r:, {hay have filed Charge sheet 31::
."~-- "<;:i>i'j1:**:e<:t,i--9f: with this crime it is numbered as
._"iTj_;i3--j;"ێ.S47/EQQE befsre JgM.E1(j:g Sazzdur.
4
J
3. The learned advocate for the petiti__Q:1ers
contend that a reading sf Section sf 22 of
Act; 1957' would pmbabafise that 3 priva:E§--~ '
has to be fikzd by an autharised Qffiritgzr uh1eéS* 215:' ._{;ig{:sr7£'s_; u
investigation has ta go; in {he 7 f23;éts =Q f' --. the"
complaint is filed would prE;1:>:é;bVa1i3:Aé"it__ is: the "
Court In View of the «fficii béfore the
court, this
<:r1.P.?347/2Q.;:§§> »and:; have held that
the .}f}1"E',.3L_'§«' for quashing the
pI°OC€€»i}'i'I1gSAV.AVi'_§1 CafC§;'Ncj';547/28881:
The'-.leé::m§§€i----,_advocate also relies on the
rulirgg" Qf %h'iS_V €O1.1Vf".'E in Abdus Savan Mufla Vs.
Gr:»_vue:::*r1":1*5:«::1:':'A:*«{_)f Karnataka.
S'." :"V"_~v.,Vi'ih"};;:E:' }€§£1f'i1€C§ SPF, supporis the case ef the
poi{::s: mmpiairzani. Section 22 :3f the Mines and
:Ix:Ei.;1..<;':'e:V}'§ {Ds:~veiopme3r1f; 8:: Regin} Act, 1957 as follows
"N9 Cfiéifi Shall mks cognizance sf 3:3};
{}ff€E}C€T:" ;::=Lmé.shai::1€ Lzzzéer zhiss Ac? 0:' azzj;
24/'
rules mads thereunder except :"
complaint in writing made by a~}__ p:3r'sQ:z ' «
autharised in this behalfjgy the C'e.1*:_*::*3;1
Gavernment or the State C}:'e\z»«~:*:*:"':'::*.*;e*37_:'c.-7' v "
63; A Carefui c0r1sid_€r&ti<> 11 thé
the section Wauid probabi1iséV;L«J;f1€ c0rIip.{ai1:tV-Zea}; be flied
by an authariseci Qfficgr. fl: a'::€_ state" éemplaint
should be filed before
7. ;.'aé:1:$._'_c:i'fu.._th-..€: base the designation is
given 3*-33-5:~tz§s'$§§:j:, So the
contefiiiorz 'thatfhs:%a:;th_5r5_séd officer has not filed the
comp1ain{L'::vVaVr1:,1cfi;~__b'ef"a,é'Cepted. So this contentian is
.....
Samad Mullet Vs. Government of Ia.f'a:z+}iA::zt§:I¢?§i1«.v_;';';2007(5)~Kar.L.JE 1121) the pmperty *._seized' Vii-anéing over :0 the poiice, the complaint was 80 Their Lerdships in para 9 of Judgment refer $5 {he ssizure by Revenue Inspector, In {ha facts '«%,.,w'""
(J2 eamplamt is by Assistant Geoiogist. So, the :.:»3.tie.:is";1{i:'tV. atiracted.
9. Next eontemtien p123LCi:1g":fe'§.ia1:1ee.V'--4r:::'?1 "' iii? Cr1.A.N0.'7369;"20(}8 is Coneerne<§L;..f';f;e co:;iffi;_:A ifs' position to understanci how' criminal'-petiiianflilnder Section 4-82 Cr.P.C.';.,.§0uri'W r*;;1;§4::1fl'1f3'f§_I"ed"if"as" crimina1 appeal. 80 apparently"fheree~.§eVem:esome mistake in the preceevdifég when there is an order, Section 374 of Cr.P.C..---- the preamble in the Cr1'm:'.:";.a} '7£'eeé:§ti0,;*:';-»,A e j» '}ear:ied..e.dvocate submits that the final 'V ' _ or:-ie1' {3::'iminé&'pe'*:ition reads as foflows H 'vj:he circumstances} the eriminai is aliowed, The impugned p=%e<:e'ed§ngS are quashed. Heweverg the zfixxéithoriseé Qfficer under the ac: is at liberty H is take reeceurse E0 seetien 22 ef the Act. 6 Se submits that the criminal petitiem is allowed by the eeurt. In the criminal appeal, it is for" the_.ve.Q:3.§' t~._te pass a epeaking order and ciarifyg €his_-*eaf:'r;.<i{'£:..f eeneidered by the successor er b}:..a§1_ethc2f e"§'fi»-5:fer'."" .
11. In eenneetiesn vqif._1f1 Cf£;§?;'§Jo.73V=§§~-KXZUO I':
connected matters, the L;nde1'-. -482 of Cr.P.C. the eubstanee ":«. would shew that Complaint e§~je.'--V'I'i1ed by police. But in egézsei the officer of the Mines referred in this eC=3f1r:e:cte_d. exa;%:.ee.__iS .210: attracted. in fihe" the abeve, the submissions aéfdi=eee;ede_ by {Kev--learned advocate for the petitioner are _ §*ej.ee.ted ,"ihegetitien is rejected as without any meal: gaife