Madras High Court
Mohamed Sheriff vs State Represented Through on 23 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.19964 and 19965 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23/03/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.19964 and 19965 of 2018
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.9164 and 9166 of 2018
(1)Crl.OP(MD)No.19964 of 2018:-
1.Mohamed Sheriff
2.Palraj : Petitioners/A5 and A6
Vs.
1.State represented through
The Inspector of Police,
Kotticode Police Station,
Kanyakumari District,
(In Crime No.86 of 2011)
2.The Village Administrative Officer,
Mecode Village,
Kanyakumari District. : Respondents/Complainants
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to
the proceedings in PRC No.13 of 2018 pending on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Padmanabhapuram and quash the
same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.19964 and 19965 of 2018
(2)Crl.OP(MD)No.19965 of 2018:-
Anitha Rajabai : Petitioner/A8
Vs.
1.State represented through
The Inspector of Police,
Kotticode Police Station,
Kanyakumari District,
(In Crime No.86 of 2011)
2.The Village Administrative Officer,
Mecode Village,
Kanyakumari District. : Respondents/Complainants
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to
the proceedings in PRC No.13 of 2018 pending on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Padmanabhapuram and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Samidurai
(In both cases)
For Respondents : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
(In both cases) Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER
These criminal original petitions are filed seeking
quashment of the PRC No.13 of 2018 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Padmanabapuram, respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.19964 and 19965 of 2018
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The de-facto complainant was working as a Village
Administrative Officer and he lodged a complaint stating
that on 31/05/2011 at about 6.00 am, the Revenue Department
officials RDO, Tashildhar, Kalkulam Taluk, Village
Administrative Officer of Verkilambi, inspected the place
called 'Kayalkarai Pulikattu'. At that time, they found
that one Appukuttan, Selvaraj, Manokaran, Chandran, Mohamed
Sherif, Palraj and Velkilambi Manokaran were found in
committing illegal sand mining activity in survey No.854/2,
which is the Government poramboke land. From the place of
occurrence, documents as well as the material objects were
seized. So on the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd
respondent, a case in Crime No.86 of 2011 has been
registered for the offences under sections 465, 468, 471,
379 IPC and section 8(ii)(iii), 5(a) of Explosives
Substances Act, 1908 and section 4(1), 4(1-A), 21(i) of
Mines and Regulation and Development Act, 1957 r/w 36(4)(1)
of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Construction Rule,
1859. After completing the formalities of investigation,
final report was filed before the committal court namely
the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Padmanabapuram, which was
taken cognizance in PRC No.13 of 2018. The offences alleged
against these petitioners are under sections 465, 468, 471,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.19964 and 19965 of 2018
379 IPC and 8(ii) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Property Damages
and Loss Act, 1992, sections 3(a) and 5(a) of Explosives
Substances Act, 1908 and section 4(1), 4(1)A, 21(ii) of the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957
r/w section Rule 36(4)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals
Concession Rules, 1859.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, these petitions have
been filed by the petitioners on the ground that the second
respondent, who is the de-facto complainant is not the
authorised person under section 22 of the Mines and Mineral
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to lodge a
complaint. A8 was having valid permission for using the
explosives and for conducting quarry operation. She
conducted the quarry operation, as per the licence
condition and that was undertaken only in her patta land
and only for the purpose of blasting the rocks for
quarrying activities, she was issued with proper licence,
which was also valid upto March' 2017 and the transport
licence was also valid upto March 2018 and the 8 th accused
was granted quarry licence for the period of 5 years from
2006 to 2011. So, explosives have been used for lawful act
in which no criminality has been involved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.19964 and 19965 of 2018
4.Heard both sides.
5.The petitioners are arrayed as A5, A6 and A8 in the
committal proceedings. The allegation against the
petitioners is that these petitioners along with other co-
accused persons were found using the explosives for
blasting the rocks and those persons were found in the
place of occurrence itself. From that place, as stated
above, articles as well as the documents have been seized
by the Revenue Officials, who went on surprise inspection
to the site.
6.As mentioned above, it is the case of the
prosecution that the 8th accused namely Anitha Rajabai was
granted quarry licence in respect of survey Nos.521/3A,
521/4B, Ponmanal Village, Kalkulam Taluk, for a period of
five years. The date of order is 19/02/2009. So it is
valid upto 2014. The date of occurrence is stated to be
31/05/2011. So according to the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, quarry operation was carried out in
the land, for which licence was also granted. But reading
of the FIR shows that illegal quarry operation was carried
on in Survey Nos.866/2, 854/1, 854/7, 854/2, 856/12 at
Mekottu village, whereas the quarry licence was granted in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.19964 and 19965 of 2018
respect of the above said survey numbers situated in
Ponmanal Village, Kalkulam Taluk. It is also seen in the
file and during the course of investigation, it was also
found that in respect of quarry operation in the licensed
area, they have been carrying quarry operation, in the non
licensed area, more particularly, in Survey No.854/2, which
is the Government poromboke land. Even though, the case
has been registered along with penal provisions of IPC and
Explosives Substance Act, 1908, the offence under the Tamil
Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
has also been included. But however, the committal court
was conscious enough with regard to the development of law.
So, it has not taken cognizable for the offences under the
provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act. It has taken cognizance for the offence
under sections sections 465, 468, 471, 379 IPC and 8(ii) of
the Tamil Nadu Property Damages and Loss Act, 1992, section
3(a) and 5(b) of Explosives Substances Act, 1908.
7.The contention on the part of the petitioners that
the offence under the provisions of Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act is a non-cognizance
offence and the 2nd respondent, who is the Village
Administrative Officer of the concerned village is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.19964 and 19965 of 2018
competent to file a complaint before the police and the
police has also no power to take the cognizance and
investigate the matter, is no more a issue now. In view of
the above judgments cited by the petitioners, on the
aspects require no consideration.
8.Let us concentrate only with regard to the offence
that has been taken cognizance by the committal court. The
articles, which were seized from the place, were also sent
to the forensic scientific lab and they have been
scientifically examined. Since prima facie materials have
been collected during the course of investigation to show
that illegal quarrying operations have been carried out by
using the forged document in Government poramboke land, by
utilizing the explosives, which requires proper trial.
Stay has been granted by this court only on the ground that
the provisions of Miners and Minerals Act is a non
cognizable offence and there is a bar under section 22 of
the Mines and Minerals Act, 1971. But from the perusal of
the records, as it is seen that the petitioners approached
this court by misconception of facts. The ground, which has
been raised by the petitioners is not available at this
stage.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.19964 and 19965 of 2018
9.Whether these petitioners are engaged or engaging
parties for the purpose of carrying out the illegal mining
activities in the above said Government poramboke land as
well as in the land in respect of which, quarry licence has
not been granted in favour of A8 are the matter for trial.
10.Now the 8th accused, as mentioned earlier, has been
granted quarry licence only in respect of the land in
survey No.821 of Ponmanai Village, Kalkulam Taluk. But as
mentioned earlier, the mining operation was conducted by
the accused in Survey Nos.866/2, 854/1, 854/7, 854/2,
856/12 at Mekottu village, The memo records consisting
survey Nos.866/2, 885, 854/1, 854/7, 856/1, 856/2 is also
produced. 'A' register copy in respect of Survey No.854/2
shows that the quarry licence was granted in the name of
Mohamed Sherif, who has shown as A5. He was also granted
quarry licence in Survey No.866/1, Mecode Village,
Kanyakumari District for the period of five years. But here
as mentioned earlier, the date of occurrence is stated to
be 31/05/2011. On the date of the above said occurrence, it
appears that he was not granted any quarry licence in
respect of the above said survey numbers, which were
mentioned in the FIR. But these survey numbers are not
mentioned in the FIR and only Survey No.866/2 is mentioned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.19964 and 19965 of 2018
10.Similarly quarry licence granted in favour of one
V.Jeba Dhas which is also subsequent to the above said
occurrence period. In respect of survey No.854/1, one
Appukutton is stated to be the owner of the land in survey
No.854/1. Devid Edward was the owner of survey No.856/2.
But these documents cannot be taken into account for
quashing the proceedings, since it is the specific case of
the petitioner that on the date of the occurrence, quarry
licence was obtained in respect of those survey numbers.
11.So considering the seriousness of the allegation
made against the petitioners, I find absolutely no reason
to quash the criminal proceedings and it must be concluded
to its logical conclusion.
12.In the result, these criminal original petitions
are dismissed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
23.03.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.19964 and 19965 of 2018
Note: In view of the
present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may
be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the
order that is presented
is the correct copy,
shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant
concerned.
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.19964 and 19965 of 2018
er
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.19964 and 19965 of 2018
23/03/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
