P. K. M. Selvam vs State - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 2696

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Mad) 2696

IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.T. SELVAM, J.
P.K.M. Selvam & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
State & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.14908 and 14668 of 2012, 16107, 16108, 4774, 6597, 6595, 6596, 6410, 6430, 6681, 6682, 6683, 6436, 6438, 7581, 7595, 12970, 15862, 15863, 15864, 16484, 6667, 6668, 6669, 7268 of 2013, 22808, 22813, 5431, 22247 of 2014, 5200, 5201, 3316, 5146, 4521 and 3080 of 2015, 6206, 7644, 7481 & 7482 of 2013
Decided On : 20.08.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Veera Kathiravan, Mr. P. Wilson, senior counsel, for Mr. A. Arun Prasad, Mr. J. Selvam, Mr. C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Mr. Ajmalkhan, senior counsel, for Mr. A. Arun Prasad, Mr. Ajmalkhan, senior counsel, for Mr. R. Gandhi, Mr. A. Ramesh, senior counsel, for Mr. Viswanathan, Mr. M. Ajmalkhan, senior counsel, for Mr. T.K.S. Gandhi, Mr. R.E. Gandhi, Mr. M. Mahaboob Athiff, Ms. Chanmundi Bose for Mr. N. Kathiresan, Mr. R. Gandhi.
For the Respondents:Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, senior counsel, for Mr. S.Shanmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. K. Anbarasan, Government Advocate [Crl.side] [R1], Mr. K. Mahendran, Mr. R. Suriyanarayanan, Mr. S. Ramesh [R2].

Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 47, 379, 120, 420, 430, 434, 304 – TNPPDL Act – Sections 4, 6 – Explosives Substances Act – Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 and 23, 25, 26 – Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 – Rule 36 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Starting with the case registered in Crime No.12 of 2015 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Madurai, (Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5200 of 2015) wherein the complaint allegation is that the accused excavated granite stones beyond the permitted limit as also excavated the same in non-permitted areas, Mr. P. Wilson, learned senior counsel, submitted that quarry operations had been conducted under due licence upon property belonging to first petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5200 of 2015 and his brother. – The allegation of commission of offences u/s.447, 379, 120(b), 420, 430, 434, 304(ii) r/w 511 of IPC, 3(1)(ii) of TNPPDL Act, 6 r/w 3(a) & 4(a) of Explosives Substances Act and 4(1), 4(1A), 21 and 23 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, was misplaced and the offences alleged would not be made out. – Learned senior counsel submitted that in circumstances where the accused admittedly were carrying out quarrying operations under due licence, violations, if any of the terms, can, at best result in recoveries by the State in keeping with Sections 25 and 26 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Held, Public Prosecutor submitted that in the present petition, the challenge was to the charge sheet and contended that when there was prima facie material, this Court would not exercise its powers u/s.482 Cr.P.C. towards quashing proceedings at its infancy. – Learned Public Prosecutor relied on the statements of as many as nine list witnesses to submit that such witnesses had spoken to the participation of the petitioner in wrong doing. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that as the petitioner wielded power, the witnesses were afraid and hence, the delay in initiating the case. Relying on the statement of LW-10, he contended that witnesses also were intimidated. – Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case had been registered for offences u/s.379 IPC as also under the MMDR Act. In filing the charge sheet, the MMDR Act had been left out. – The act of the Magistrate in taking cognizance also for offences under the MMDR Act reflected his independent application of mind. – Learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud & another v. State of Delhi to submit that even if there be errors in the investigation, the same would not vitiate the trial. – Crl.O.P Dismissed

ORDER

Several cases stand registered at various police stations informing commission of offences in the conduct of granite quarry operations. As many common questions arise and the submissions of some counsel in certain petitions have been adopted by others, these petitions may be disposed of under a common order.

2. The tabular statement herein below informs, in brief, the complaint allegations and the offences alleged:

Crl.O.P (MD)No	Crime No.	On the file of	Offences	Name of the complainant	Nature of allegation
14908/ 2012	161/ 2012	Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai	447, 379 IPC r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and 4(1), 4(2)(A), 4(3), 21(b) and (5) of MMDR Act.	A.Parthiban, VAO	M/s.Olympus Granite Pvt. Ltd. was granted lease for conducting quarry operations in S.No.259/ 4B2 at Keelavalavu village. They trespassed into the poramboke lands (TAMIN) and conducted quarry operations.
14668/ 2012	183/ 2012	Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai	447, 379, 109, 120(b), 201, 406, 420 IPC r/w 3(1), 4(1) of TNPPDL Act, 4(1), 4(2)(A), 4(3), 21(b) and 5 of MMDR Act and 4 of Explosives Substances Act	Mohamed Ali, VAO	Petitioner was granted lease in respect of S.No. 209/3F at E.Malampatti Village. However, petitioner trespassed into the adjacent poramboke land (S.No.210) and conducted quarry operations.
16107/ 2013	225/ 2013	Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai	147, 447, 379, 434, 304(ii) r/w 511 IPC and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act r/w 4(1) 4(1)(A) r/w 21, 23 MMDR Act 1957 and 4 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908	P.Ravichandra Prabhu, VAO	Quarrying lease was granted to first petitioner. He along with other accused illegally carried out quarrying operation in the adjacent land in S.F.No.70/1, 70/8A, 71/6, 71/7, 71/8, 72/2, 72/5B2, 72/15, 75/12, 75/14A using explosives.
16108/ 2013	415/ 2013	Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District	120(B), 406, 420, 447, 379, 304(ii) r/w 511 IPC and 3(1)(2) of TNPPDL Act and 4(A), 4(1)(A) and 21 of MMDR Act and 3(a), 4(a) of Explosives Substances Act, 1908	Vincent Xavier Raj, Tahsildar, Madurai District	Mining lease granted in respect of S.F.No.56/1 & 94/6. However, accused illegally conducted quarrying operations in the adjacent lands and caused loss to the Government.
4774/ 2013	146/ 2012	Pattiveeran patti Police Station, Dindigul District	379, 420 IPC and 4(1)(A) of Mines and Minerals Regulation Act, 1952.	P.Paranjothi, VAO	Accused illegally conducted quarrying operation in the Government poromboke land.
6597/ 2013	155/ 2012	Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai	447, 379, 201 IPC r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and 4(1), 4(2) (A), 4(3) and 21(b) (5) of MMDR Act.	M.Akbar Sait, VAO	PRP exports was granted quarrying lease. However, they trespassed into the adjacent poramboke land and illegally carried out quarrying operation.
6595/ 2013	62/ 2013	Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai	447, 379, 201, 420, 109, 120(B) IPC r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and 4(1)(A), 21 & 23 of MMDR Act, 1957 and 4 of Explosives Substances Act.	M.Akbar Sait, VAO	M/s.PRP exports has been granted mining lease. They trespassed into the Government poramboke land and illegally carried out quarrying operation.
6596/ 2013	61/ 2013	Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai	120(B), 109, 447, 379, 420, 201, 304(1) IPC r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and 4(1)(A), 21, 23 of MMDR Act, 1957 and 4 of Indian Explosives Substances Act.	M.Akbar Sait, VAO	One Kottaiveeran (lessee) has been granted mining lease for Survey No.99, Keelaiyur village, Government poramboke Land, who, in turn entered into an agreement dated 01.04.2000 with one P.Pala

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(Mad) 2696

Cases Referred (19)