Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Facts of the case in short are that petitioner-accused Sanad Kumar is registered owner of vehicle (Dumper) No. UP93 AT 9349. Petitioner-accused Ashish Singh is the owner of vehicle (Dumper) No. UP 93 AT 9239 and UP 93 AT 7654. At the time of incident, Sub Inspector- Pradeep Saraf was posted at police station, Chandera. On 05.08.2018 in the night, he was searching the vehicle. At the time of checking four dumpers No. UP 93 AT 9349, UP 93 AT 9239, UP 93 AT 7654 and UP 93 BT 6129 were stopped, in which sand was filled. Sub Inspector-Pradeep Saraf inquired about the sand from the driver, but driver was unable to give any explanation about the said sand. They had no permit for transporting the sand then Dumpers were seized with the sand. First Information was lodged under Section 379 of IPC and Section 53 of MP Minor Mineral Act. Petitioners-accused are also implicated in these cases.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that Minor Mineral Rules being regulatory, Section 379 of IPC is an offence. Government is the owner of Mineral, Therefore, no person is allowed to transport the sand without permission of the Government, if any person takes the sand without permission, then the offence under Section 379 of IPC would be made out. Minor Mineral Rules provides niether penalty nor any sentence, so he prays for dismissal of petition.

5. Heard both the parties and perused the record.

"Considering the principles of interpretation and the wordings used in Section 22, in our considered opinion, the provision is not a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals including sand from the river bed. The Court shall take judicial notice of the fact that over the years rivers in India have been affected by the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which is damaging the ecosystem of the rivers and safety of bridges. It also weakens river beds, fish breeding and destroys the natural habitat of many organisms. If these illegal activities are not stopped by the State and the police authorities of the State, it will cause serious repercussions as mentioned herein-above. It will not only change the river hydrology but also will deplete the ground water levels."

12. Then further, the Apex Court in paras 69 and 70 of the said judgment, categorically stated that:-

"69. However, there may be situation where a person without any lease or licence or any authority enters into river and extracts sands, gravels 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 Indian Penal Code. "70 From a close reading of the provisions of MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section 378, IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients constitution 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, gravels 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."