ORAL ORDER

The petitioners/accused Nos.10 and 12, challenge the cognizance taken of the offences punishable under Sections 9(2)(vi), 10, 16(1), 16(2), 17(1), 17(2), 3-C(3), and 3-C(5) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2011, as well as Sections 16(1) and 17(1) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011.

2. The respondents filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), alleging that the petitioners were granted a license for stone crushing, and during the currency of the license, they stacked minerals and carried out stone crushing without paying royalty to the government. The learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the complaint, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences, prompting the petitioners to approach this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that stacking minerals without payment of royalty is a contravention under Rule 3-C of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2012’). Sub- rule (5) of Rule 3-C provides that the competent authority must be given an opportunity to take action before initiating penal proceedings under the provisions of the Act. Furthermore, an alternative remedy of appeal is provided under Section 15 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2011’), against any order passed by the competent authority after hearing the petitioners. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, without following the prescribed procedure, amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

4. In support of his argument, he relies on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.101794/2021.

5. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents contended that the petitioners, by stacking minerals without paying royalty to the government, have committed an offence under Rule 3-C of the Rules of 2012, which is punishable under Section 16 of the Act of 2011. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, after rightly considering the averments made in the complaint, has taken cognizance, which does not warrant interference.

6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

7. Rule 3-C of the Rules of 2012 states that no crusher licensee shall receive, store, or cause to store any minerals or processed minerals on its premises without a valid mineral dispatch permit issued in accordance with mineral concession rules.

8. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3-C further provides that if any mineral or its processed product is found on the premises of a crusher licensee without proper royalty payment, the competent authority shall, after granting an opportunity of hearing, initiate penal action under the provisions of the Act.

9. Therefore, before initiating any penal action, an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the crusher licensee. Upon considering the reply, if any, submitted by the licensee, the competent authority must pass an appropriate order. The licensing authority may, thereafter, pass an order either canceling the license, imposing a fine, or initiating criminal prosecution.

10. Section 15 of the Act of 2011 provides for an appeal against any order passed by the licensing authority, stating that such an appeal shall lie before the Regional Commissioner.

11. In similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.101794/2021, while dealing with similar provisions under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, referred to Section 48 of the said Act, which provides for the compounding of offences, and Section 50, which provides for an appeal.

12. In reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Shalini K. v. Inspector of Legal Metrology & Another (W.P. No.51116/2017 (GM-RES) and connected cases), it has been held that under Section 50(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, an appeal is available to an offender against any decision taken based on a reply su