Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nagamma Kuppayya Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRL.P.NO.100509/2022
BETWEEN
1. SMT. NAGAMMA KUPPAYYA NAIK
(JOINT OWNER OF LAND)
AGE. 60 YRS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SUSGADI, CHOWTHANI MAIN ROAD,
BHATKAL, UGRANI MANE,
BHATKAL - 581 301.
2. SHRI. SATISH KUPPAYYA NAIK
(JOINT OWNER OF LAND)
AGE. 34 YRS, OCC. AGRL.,
R/O. SUSGADI, CHOWTHANI MAIN ROAD,
BHATKAL, UGRANI MANE,
BHATKAL - 581 301.
3. SMT. SHASHIKALA PRADEEP NAIK
(JOINT OWNER OF LAND)
AGE. 37 YRS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SUSGADI, CHOWTHANI MAIN ROAD,
BHATKAL, UGRANI MANE,
BHATKAL - 581 301.
2
4. SMT. NAGAMMA KOM. DHANANJAY NAIK
(JOINT OWNER OF LAND)
AGE. 79 YRS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SUSGADI, CHOWTHANI MAIN ROAD,
BHATKAL, UGRANI MANE,
BHATKAL - 581 301.
5. SMT. PADMAVATI KOM. JATTI NAIK
(JOINT OWNER OF LAND)
AGE. 73 YRS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SUSGADI, CHOWTHANI MAIN ROAD,
BHATKAL, UGRANI MANE,
BHATKAL - 581 301.
6. SHRI. ANANT VENKATRAMAN NAIK
(JOINT OWNER OF LAND)
AGE. 65 YRS, OCC. AGRI,
R/O. SUSGADI, CHOWTHANI MAIN ROAD,
BHATKAL, UGRANI MANE,
BHATKAL - 581 301.
7. SHRI. RAKSHIT NITIN
(JOINT OWNER OF LAND)
AGE. 32 YRS, OCC. DOCTOR,
R/O. SUSGADI, CHOWTHANI MAIN ROAD,
BHATKAL, UGRANI MANE,
BHATKAL - 581 301.
3
8. SMT. GOWRI KOM JATTI NAIK
(JOINT OWNER OF LAND)
AGE. 58 YRS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
R/O. SUSGADI, CHOWTHANI MAIN ROAD,
BHATKAL, UGRANI MANE,
BHATKAL - 581 301.
9. SHRI. FARHAN PATEL
(OPERATION EXECUTORS)
AGED 40 YRS. OCC- NIL,
R/O. NEAR OLD BUS STAND
MAIN ROAD, BHATKAL- 581301.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
JAIRAM GANAPATHI NAYAK,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
ASHRAM ROAD, KARWAR, (U.K),
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-5800011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)
4
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.CASE NO.19/2022
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR (CC NO.247/2021 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL JMFC BHATKAL- PCR NO.421/2020) FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 4(1) 21 OF MMRD ACT-1957 AND
RULE 44 OF KMMC RULE 1994.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
A Private complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the petitioners have extracted Murram and transported the same have committed offence punishable under Section 4(1) and 21 of the mines and minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Section 44 of Karnataka Minor And Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance for the aforesaid offences ordered for registration of the 5 case against the petitioners. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the "Murram" does not come under the definition of minor and minerals as specified under Section 3(e) of the MMDR Act, 1957 and as such the registration of complaint for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner is one without authority of law.
3. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the "Murram" is notified as Minor and Minerals under the Karnataka Minor and Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2020 by amending Rule 3A of the rules wherein for the words ("mines mineral except sand") the words, "Laterite or fullers earth or murram" is substituted. Hence, he submits that in view of the Amended Rule 3A of the Act, "Murram" is a notified Minor Minerals under the Karnataka 6 Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. Hence, he submits that the petitioners having extracted Murram and transporting the same without obtaining license have committed an offence punishable under Provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules.
4. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. By an amendment of the Rule 3A 2020, "Murram" has been notified as minor and minerals. In view of the said amended Rule 3A the extraction of "Murram" and transporting the same without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority is an offence punishable under provisions of MMDR Act and so also the Rules. Hence, the complaint filed by the second respondent against the petitioner for having committed the alleged aforesaid offences is maintainable. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
7
6. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the case without being influenced by this order based on the available material on record.
7. All contentions are kept open.
8. In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSP