Case Law Details
Jayant Etc. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Supreme Court of India)
On a surprise inspection, the respective Mining Inspectors checked the tractor/trolleys of the private appellants along with the minor mineral (sand/storage/yellow soil etc.) loaded in them. They handed over the tractor/trolleys to the concerned police stations to keep them in safe custody. Finding the private appellants indulged in illegal mining/transportation of minor mineral, the mining Inspectors prepared their respective cases under Rule 53 of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1996 Rules’) and submitted them before the Mining Officers with a proposal of compounding the same for the amount calculated according to the concerned 1996 Rules. The concerned Mining Officers submitted those cases before the Collector, who approved the proposal. The violators accepted the decision and deposited the amounts determined by the Collector for compounding the cases. Their tractor/trolleys along with the minerals, which were illegally excavated/transported, were released.
That after some time, a news was published in a daily newspaper – Bhaskar on 8.9.2019 with respect to illegal excavation/transportation of mineral sand from Chambal, Shivna and Retam and other Tributary rivers flow from District Mandsuar and in surrounding places. It was revealed that due to illegal transportation of the minerals and without payment of royalty, revenue loss is occurring. It was reported that illegal mining, storage and transportation of mineral sand was being carried out at large scale. Similar kind of information was also subsequently published on 3.10.2019 in the daily newspaper – Bhaskar in Mandsuar edition. It was also reported that despite the offences under Sections 379 and 414, IPC and the offences under the MMDR Act and the 2006 Rules were found attracted, necessary legal action has not been taken and the violators were permitted to go on compounding the offence under Rule 53 of the 1996 Rules. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandsuar took note of the aforesaid information and having taken note of the decision of this Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 taking the view that offences under the IPC and offences under the MMDR Act are distinct and different and it is permissible to lodge/initiate the proceedings for the offences under the IPC as well as under the MMDR Act, the learned Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. (suo motu) directed to register criminal case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for initiation of investigation and for submitting of report after due investigation is conducted. The learned Magistrate also directed the concerned Incharge/SHOs of the concerned police stations to register the first information report and a copy of the first information report be sent to the learned Magistrate as per the provisions of Section 157, Cr.P.C. 3.2 That pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the Incharge/SHOs of the concerned police stations lodged separate FIRs for the aforesaid offences for illegal mining/transportation of sand.
After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder visàvis the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, and the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred to hereinabove and for the reasons stated hereinabove, our conclusions are as under:
i) that the learned Magistrate can in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code order/direct the concerned Incharge/SHO of the police station to lodge/register crime case/FIR even for the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and at this stage the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall not be attracted;
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
