Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 322
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
S RACHAIAH, J.
Rajkumar S/o Shankar Khajuri - Appellant
Vs.
State - Respondent
Crl.R.P. No. 200098, 200099 Of 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
Decided On : 30-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADV.
For the Respondent: SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP
Cognizance of MMDR Act offences must align with jurisdictional provisions, while IPC theft charges can be pursued independently, as evidenced by the conviction of petitioners for illegal sand transportation.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 379 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 21(1) and 22 - Legal proceedings arising from illegal transportation of sand - Conviction under IPC upheld, as evidence established theft of state property - However, cognizance for MMDR Act was improperly taken by the Trial Court - The Appellate Court’s confirmation of conviction was maintained, but sentence modified to a fine instead of imprisonment. (Paras 1-19)
(B) Special Court Jurisdiction - The cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act can only be taken by Special Courts as per Section 30
(B), with specific complaints from the authorized officers. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
Accused were involved in transporting sand illegally without permits; they were apprehended by a complainant, leading to a charge sheet by police. The Trial Court convicted them for theft under IPC but acquitted them under MMDR Act due to jurisdiction issues. (Paras 3-5)
Findings of Court:
Initial convictions upheld based on overwhelming evidence for theft of sand; however, fine imposed in place of imprisonment was deemed appropriate due to petitioners’ personal circumstances. (Paras 16-18)
Issues: The key issues addressed included the legality of cognizance taken under the MMDR Act and the appropriateness of the conviction under the IPC for theft of sand. (Paras 10-16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that theft of state-owned sand is prosecutable under IPC independently, despite concurrent offences under the MMDR Act's jurisdictional requirements; the evidence supported the conviction for theft, confirming the lower courts' findings. (Paras 14-15)
Result: Petitions allowed in part, with the sentence modified to a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. (Para 18)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of revision petitions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of illegal sand transport. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding jurisdiction and cognizance. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. clarification of mmdr act provisions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. distinct offenses under mmdr act and ipc. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. sentence modification to a fine. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
S RACHAIAH, J.
1. These two petitions are arising out of the same judgment of conviction and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court.
2. Accused Nos.8 and 12 are the petitioners in Crl.R.P No.200098/2020 and accused Nos.6, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are the petitioners in Crl.R.P No.200099/2020.
Factual matrix of the case
3. On 24.02.2013 at about 3.00 p.m., the complainant received an information that sand was being transported illegally by the accused in lorries and the tractors. On receiving the said information, the complainant went to the spot along with his staff and panch witnesses. He intercepted the lorries and enquired the drivers to show the permit to transport the sand. In the meantime, he also learnt that two more lorries and one tractor were there in the riverbed and they were also filling the sand to the lorries and tractors. Immediately, he instructed the officials to take appropriate steps.
4. The complainant after having arrested the accused and also seized the lorries along with sand, registered a case before the respondent police. The respondent - police after registering the case, conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 379 , 420 r/w 149 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 21 (1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act’).
5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined six witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and also got marked 74 documents as Ex.P1 to P.74. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the conviction for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and acquitted for other offences. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners have approached the Appellate Court by filing an appeal. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the revision petitions.
6. Heard Sri.Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Jamedar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State in both the petitions.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and also its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court is contrary to the facts and law on record. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
8. It is further submitted that the order of taking cognizance by the Special Court in respect of the offence under Section 21 (1) of the MMDR Act is contrary to the Act. As per the provisions under Section 30 (B) of the said Act, the Special Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance for the said offences. Moreover, Section 22 of the Act specifies that, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act except under the written complaint filed by the Authorised Officer. Such being the fact, the Trial Court committed error in taking cognizance of all the offences and passed the impugned judgment, which is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petitions.
9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and he further submitted that the Trial Court has rightly recorded the conviction on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the respondent - police for the above said offences. Th
