SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Kar) 91

H.P.SANDESH
SURESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
A.P. Murari, Adv., Praveen K Uppar, Adv.

JUDGMENT

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-state.

2. The factual matrix of this case is that Station Officer, Bankapur Police Station, Tq: Shiggaon, Dist: Haveri, has registered the case in Crime No.77/2018 dated 28.03.2018 against the petitioners who have been arrived as accused Nos.1 and 2 for alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 4(1A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (for short MMDR Act, 1957), Rules 31R, 13, 3(1), 42 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (KMMC Rules 1994) and under Section 379 of IPC, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Gajanan Raghunath Gaikwad, in-charge village accountant, Konanakeri.

3. The main contention of the petitioner in this case is that on the basis of the complaint annexed in Annexures- A and B complaint dated 28.03.2018 filed by the respondent No.2 is untenable in law and under Section 22 of MMDR Act, 1957 mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing m














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top