HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
RASHMI HITNAL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner challenges 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 petitioner was granted a license for stone crushing, and during the currency of the license, she 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 petitioner to approach this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.