Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4597
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.M. AKBAR ALI, J.
Perumal & Others
Versus
Inspector of Police, Madathukulam Police Station, Tirupur District & Another
Cri. O.P. Nos. 21570, 21573, 22056 & 21710 of 2012 & M.Ps. Nos. 1, 1 & 1 of 2012
Decided On : 15-11-2012
For the Petitioners:A. Natarajan, S. Ashok Kumar, Senior Counsel, M.M. Balakrishna, A. Sasidharan, Advocate.
For the Intervenor:M. Purushothaman, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Shanmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor assisted by C. Iyyapparaj, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
Arrest should be the last option, and factors under Section 438, Cr.P.C. should be considered in granting bail. Investigation is necessary to determine the actual loss to the Government.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Mines and Minerals - Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations Act, 1957 r/w 379, IPC - 438, Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners seek Anticipatory Bail for alleged offences related to quarrying red soil without permission and excessive quantities, involving Mines and Minerals Act and IPC. The Petitioners claim to have necessary licenses and permissions for quarrying.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the allegations of excessive quarrying and revenue loss needed investigation, but custodial interrogation may not be necessary. The Court emphasized that arrest should be the last option and considered the factors under Section 438, Cr.P.C. in granting bail.
Issues: Allegations of illegal quarrying, excessive quarrying, and revenue loss, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and the grant of Anticipatory Bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that arrest should be the last option and should be restricted to exceptional cases. It considered the factors under Section 438, Cr.P.C. in granting bail and highlighted the need for investigation before determining the actual loss to the Government.
Final Decision: The Petitioners were granted Anticipatory Bail with specific conditions and directions for depositing sums to the credit of the respective cases and appearing before the Respondent as required.
1. The Petitioners, who are alleged to have committed the following offences on the file of the Respondent, seek Anticipatory Bail.
2. The Petitioners are running brick-kiln chambers in four different Partnership firms in which they are the partners. The names of he brick-kiln chambers run by the Petitioners in the above Criminal Original Petitions are as follows:
3. On the Complaint given by the Village Administrative Officers of the respective villages stating that from 2010, the Accused have not obtained any mining licence from the Government, but have been quarrying red soil without permission and also in excessive quantities and thereby committed offence involving Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations Act, 1957 r/w 379, IPC. Cases were registered by Madathukulam Police Station and by Kumaralingam Police Station against the partners and the firms and some of the accused were arrested also. Those persons who are not arrested and partners in the business are before this Court, seeking anticipatory bail.
4. Mr. A. Natarajan, learned Senior counsel appeared for the Petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.21570, 21573 & 22056 of 2012, which relate to Cr.Nos.361 to 363 of 2012 and Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.21710 of 2012 which relates to Cr.No.208 of 2012 and Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. C. Iyapparaj appeared for Respondent.
5. One Mr. Soundarajan, who belong to a political party, appeared through a Counsel Mr. M. Purushothaman as an Intervenor.
6. Though the facts and circumstances of all the Petitions are one and the same, the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the Petitioners, have been considered separately.
7. Mr. A. Natarajan, learned Senior counsel would submit that the very First Information Report itself is based on mistake of facts. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that from the year 2006, the Petitioners are running the brick-kiln chambers and they have obtained necessary licence from the Government for quarrying red soils from Patta land.
8. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that only by an Order of the District collector, dated 3.6.2009 & 17.7.2009, the red soil which is a minor mineral were quarried and initially the mining period was for one year and renewed periodically. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the land owners have also given Consent Letter for quarrying red soil and necessary fee was also paid to the Government. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Petitioners have also obtained licence for running brick-kiln chambers.
9. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that there is no theft of minerals and in the process of making chamber bricks, the soil has to be stored in huge quantity and they will be periodically used for making bricks. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Petitioners have not committed any offence and there is no violation of any of the provision of the Mines and Minerals Act or Rules.
10. Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.21710/2012 submitted that the Petitioners are also the licencees for running brick-kiln chambers and the Complaint is motivated. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the Petitioners have been granted permission from 7.3.2012 to 6.3.2013 for quarrying red soils and by a proceeding dated 31.8.2012, the Revenue Divisional Officer has found that there was an excess quarrying and has imposed a penalty of Rs.7,88,730/- and the same has also been paid by the Petitioners in Cr.No.208 of 2012.
11. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that on 1.9.2012, on a Complaint given by the Village Administrative Officer, case has been registered. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the present allegation, that the Petitioners have quarried the red soil in excess and thereby caused loss to the Government to the tune of more that Rs.36,00,000/-
