Madras High Court
Mahesh vs The Station House Officer on 29 January, 2019
Author: V.Parthiban
Bench: V.Parthiban
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 29.01.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
Crl.R.C.No.152 of 2019 and
Crl.M.P.No.1348 of 2019
Mahesh ...Petitioner
..Vs..
The Station House Officer,
Sethiyathope Police Station,
Chidamabaram Taluk,
Cuddalore District. ...Respondent
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 read
with 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated
17.04.2018 passed by the Assistant Sessions Court Chidambaram in
Crl.M.P.No.43 of 2018 in S.C.No.63 of 2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.P.Shanmugasundaram
For Respondent : Mr.G.Harihara Arun Soma Sundar
ORDER
The above criminal revision petition has been filed against the order of the Assistant Sessions Court, Chidambaram in Crl.M.P.No.43 of 2018 in S.C.No.63 of 2015 dated 17.04.2018, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/first accused, seeking to discharge him from the offence.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused No.1, along with other accused, had involved in sand theft and when they were intercepted, while transporting the sand in a tractor, by the police, they had threatened the police with dire consequences and also driven the tractor in a high speed, to cause injury to the police. Therefore, they were booked under Sections.379, 307, 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code Read with Section 4 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957.
3.Before the trial Court, a petition was filed to discharge the accused herein on the ground that no case was made out for proceeding against him and also that as per the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act, sanction is required in writing by a person authorized either by the Central Government or by the State Government. In this case, the respondent is not competent to proceed against the accused under Sections 397, 307, 506 (ii) I.P.C. read with Section 4 of Mines and Minerals Act 1957.
4.The learned Sessions Court dealt with the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner/accused No.1 and held that though cognizance http://www.judis.nic.in 3 could not be taken against the accused under the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act, however, it is within the power of the Sessions Court to take cognizance of the offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. In this connection, the Sessions Court has relied on a decision of this reported in 2012 (1) MWN (Cr.) 238 (DB) in the matter of Sengol and others vs. State. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the offences under the Indian Penal Code can always be charged against the accused, when they are involved in an offence under the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act.
5.The learned Magistrate in extentso has extracted the order of the High Court and finally held that the petitioner herein cannot be charged for offences under the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act 1957, but he can be charged for offences under Sections.379, 307, 506 (ii) I.P.C., which provisions are distinguishable from the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act.
6.The learned Sessions Court, after holding as such, proceeded to hold that there were prima facie materials available to proceed against the present revision petitioner for the offences charged against him. In the said circumstances, the trial Court has dismissed the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 discharge petition as being without any merit. It is also a fact that the third accused had already filed a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 04.12.2015 itself. After a period of so many years the present discharge petition has been filed by the present accused.
7.This Court is unable to appreciate as to how the petitioner can expect that the discharge petition could be entertained when the materials relied on by the trial Court prima facie disclose existence of case against the petitioner herein in order to proceed with the trial. The other accused had already filed a similar discharge petition and the same was dismissed as early as on 04.12.2015 and as such, the said order has become final. In such a case, it is not understandable as to how the present discharge petition could be entertained on the basis of the grounds raised in support of the petition.
8.Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge has relied on a decision of this Court to dispel the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the case against the petitioner for violating the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act. Although cognizance could not be taken in respect of the provisions of the Mines and http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Minerals Act 1957, yet the Court is competent to take cognizance of the offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Both the provisions are distinguishable and hence the Court below has rightly taken a decision to discountenance the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner herein. The Court below has also given a finding of fact that there were materials available to proceed against the petitioner herein/accused, even otherwise.
For the above said reasons, this Court is unable to find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below, warranting interference. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.01.2019
Index : Yes/No
pns/msk
To
1.The Station House Officer,
Sethiyathope Police Station,
Chidamabaram Taluk,
Cuddalore District
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras 104.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
V.PARTHIBAN,J.,
pns
Crl.R.C.No.152 of 2019 and
Crl.M.P.No.1348 of 2019
29.01.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in