Partly allowed

Sri T Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2022CRL.P/7152/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under the MMDR Act and KMMC Rules initiated without an Authorised Officer's complaint, holding such initiation violates Section 22 of the MMDR Act. However, it upheld proceedings for the IPC offence of theft regarding removed stones.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet under MMDR Act and KMMC Rules quashed; order to initiate proceedings under these provisions in accordance with law; charge sheet under Section 379 IPC upheld.

Sri T Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7152 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI T. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O. LATE THIMMAIAH RESIDING AT NO.104 14TH "D" CROSS, 2ND STAGE 2ND PHASE, W.O.C. ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE - 560 086 & ALSO AT PROPRIETOR ABHIMANI GROUPS, NO.9 AVVERAHALLI, SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE - 571 606.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI HONNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI H.L. JAYARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DABBASPET P.S. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

SMT. N. SHOBHA GEOLOGIST MINES AND MINERAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT 13TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAYA TOWER BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, HCGP FOR R.1; R.2 SERVED.)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.1286/2014 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 42 AND 44 OF THE K.M.M.C.R. 1994, SECTIONS 4(1), 4(1A) AND 21 OF THE M.M.D.R. ACT, 1957 READ WITH 379 OF THE IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NELAMANGALA AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ORDER FOR CALLING OF LOWER COURT RECORD FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

On the allegation that the petitioner conducted illegal mining on government land and removed the mined stones from the government land illegally, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under Rules 42 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 ('KMMC Rules' for short), Sections 4(1), 4(1A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ('MMDR Act' for short) read with Section 379 of IPC. Charge sheet in this regard has been filed against the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition is filed.

¶21

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that he is not guilty of the offences alleged. It is further submitted that complaint has not been filed by an Authorised Officer as contemplated in Section 22 of the MMDR Act and the trial court should not have taken cognizance of the said offences. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the proceedings in CC No.1286/2014 against the petitioner herein be quashed.

¶23

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent no.1 upon instructions submits that the allegations in the charge sheet constitute the offences alleged. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are that he did quarrying on a government land without any licence and he has lifted the materials from the land and thus it constitute the offences as alleged. However, the learned HCGP fairly submits that the complaint has not been filed by the Authorised Officer as contemplated in MMDR Act. If the proceedings are initiated in violation of Section 22 of MMDR Act, then the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶24

¶25

4. Section 22 of MMDR Act reads as under:

¶26

"22. Cognizance of offences .—No court shall take

¶27

cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government."

¶28

Admittedly, in the instant case, the proceedings are initiated in contravention of the aforementioned provisions and the Court cannot take cognizance of the offences committed under the provisions of the MMDR Act or KMMC Rules. However, the allegation of illegally removed stones from the government land, if proved, constitutes an offence as contemplated under Section 379 of IPC and the same is liable to be continued. Hence, the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) The petition filed by the petitioner/accused is allowed in part;

¶31

(ii) The charge sheet laid against the petitioner/accused in CC No.1286/2014 for the offences punishable under Rules 42 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Sections 4(1), 4(1A)

¶32

¶33

and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is hereby quashed;

¶34

(iii) The charge sheet laid against the

¶35

petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC is upheld;

¶36

(iv) The Competent Authority is at liberty to initiate proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under the provisions of MMDR Act and KMMC Rules in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

¶37

SD/JUDGE

¶38

hkh.

Sri T Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sunanda Vs Satya Deepa Ashrama

Mr M M Kariappa Vs Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

S Basappaji Vs Sri N R Sharma

President Vs Mahajabeen Naaz

Chandru (Chandrashekar S) Vs State by Kuvempu Nagara Police

M/S. Sumukha Labels Vs Mr. K. C. Sathya Narayana Reddy