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

2021 Supreme(Guj) 444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SIROYA (PATEL) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 17322 of 2019
Decided On : 30-06-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR ASHISH M DAGLI
For the Respondent: MS MONALI BHATT

Point of Law: Bar under sub-section (2) of Section 23-A shall not affect any proceedings for the offences under IPC, such as, Section 379 and 414 IPC, which shall proceed further in accordance with law.

Headnote:

Indian Penal code 1860-Sections 379 –Punishment for theft - Code of Criminal Procedure Code 1973-Section 482- Saving inherent powers of High Court - Right of violator to get the offence compounded on payment of the penalty as per sub-section (1) of Section 23-A of the MMRD Act -Gujarat Mines and Minerals Rules 2005- Section 3,5,6,13- Mines and Minerals Act 1957- Section- 4(1-4) , 21-Evidence of mineral resources-Binding parameters-Notice inviting and inviting documents -Area of Quarry lease-Prospecting or mining operation to be under licence or lease-Penalties- Prayer to quash and set aside the complaint- The F.I.R. is absolutely false and no such offence has been committed by him- The applicant has also challenged the lodging of the F.I.R. by the police.-The F.I.R. filed is in context of alleged breach of Section 4(1-A) and 21 of the MMRD Act-

Finding of the Court:

,The de facto complainant is the Mines Supervisor of Geology and Mining Department, Gir Somnath, who had prayed for registration of the complaint under Section 379 of the IPC and under Sections 3, 5, 6 and 13 of Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation And Storage) Rules, 2005 and Sections 4(1-A) and 21 of the MMRD Act- The police at that time did not include Section 379 of the IPC in the FIR. Thereafter, police made a prayer before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gir Gadhda to add Section 379 IPC in the FIR which was allowed- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in consonance to the conclusion laid down in case- Petition is partly allowed with following order- Directions- A copy of the Charge sheet shall be sent to the authorized officer as mentioned under Section 22 of the MMRD Act- On receipt of such report, it shall be open to the authorized officer to file a complaint before the Magistrate concerned along with such police report- In respect of the offences under IPC, the concerned Magisterial Court shall be at liberty to take cognizance thereof, on the police report, to proceed further in accordance with law- The above observations and directions, the present application stands disposed of accordingly-

Result: Petition is partly allowed.

ORDER :

1. The present petition is moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for Short ‘Code’) with a prayer to quash and set aside the complaint being II-C.R. No.17/2017 dated 18.05.2017 under Sections 3, 5, 6 and 13 of Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation And Storage) Rules, 2005 and Sections 4(1-A) and 21 of the Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulations) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMRD Act’), registered at Gir Gadhada Police Station, culminated as Criminal Case No.1894/2017 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gir Gadhada.

2. The F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no.2 – Assistant Geologist, Gir Somnath Office, Gir Somnath with allegation that excavation is being carried out in the land belonging to the applicant. Section 379 of the I.P.C. was prayed to be added vide application of A.S.I., Gir Gadhada Police Station and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gir Gadhada by an order dated 25.09.2017 permitted to add the same in the F.I.R.

2.1 The applicant states that the F.I.R. is absolutely false and no such offence has been committed by him. He is residing at the place far away from the land, as noted in the F.I.R. The applicant found some villagers near his land and therefore had made representation to the authorities concerned including the police to initiate action against them, but no heed was paid to his representation. The applicant has also challenged the lodging of the F.I.R. by the police.

3. Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the F.I.R. filed is in context of alleged breach of Section 4(1-A) and 21 of the MMRD Act with breach of Gujarat Mineral Rules. At the end of the investigation, the charge-sheet is also filed for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC. Mr. Dagli submitted that the MMRD Act is a special Act where the cognizance is to be taken in accordance to the provisions of Section 22 of the Act and such can be done only after a private complaint by the person authorized on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government. He submitted that the proceedings has arisen out of an F.I.R. filed by the police and in pursuance thereof report was submitted under Section 173 of the Code, therefore, stated that any cognizance on the report would be illegal, unjust and without jurisdiction.

3.1 Mr. Dagli stated that the offence was registered under MMRD Act and later on Section 379 of IPC was added, which he submits, has to be proved, since the alleged act is of excavation of minerals from the private land of the applicant and therefore, Mr. Dagly submits that no offence would be made out under Section 379 of the IPC. Mr. Dagli submitted that the applicant has made several representations by contending that the activities on land were by persons unknown to him and the police or the authorities under MMRD Act, has not taken any action towards such representation.

4. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP for the respondent State, referring to the case of Jayant And Other Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 670, submitted that the issue has now been settled and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment referring to various case laws has ultimately concluded in para-21, which as per Ms. Monali Bhatt, would be useful guidance and direction to the authorities under the MMRD Act and the police and further to the Magistrate and the Special Court. Ms. Bhatt, contended that the judgment of Jayant And Other Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) would clarify the course of action to be adopted by the authorities and the Court concerned.

5. Perusal of the F.I.R. shows that it was lodged on a complaint by Mr. Yogesh Savjani, Mines Supervisor, Geology and Mining Department, Gir Somnath. The complaint was addressed to the Police Inspector, Gir Gadhada Police Station, Gir Somnath on 18.05.2017 with the allegation of theft of mineral under Section 379 of IPC, Sections 3, 5, 6 and 13 of Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal

      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 Back to top