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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18861

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J
NANJEGOWDA S/O KALAIAH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8995 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. LAVANYA M.
For the Respondents: ST. WAHEEDA M.M.

A complaint under the Mines and Minerals Act must be authorized for cognizance; failure renders it unmaintainable.

Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 4(1A), 22, 30B - Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 - The petitioners requested anticipatory bail against allegations of illegal quarrying causing loss to the State, claiming that the complaint against them is not maintainable as it wasn't filed by an authorized person. The Court opined that the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate is indeed not maintainable based on the MMDR Act's provisions necessitating complainant authorisation. (Paras 4, 6)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - The Court, upon consideration of the merits and nature of allegations against the petitioners, found that they meet the criteria for anticipatory bail. Conditions were set regarding their appearance and cooperation with law enforcement. (Paras 5, 7)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were accused of unlawfully quarrying stone from government land and causing financial damage to the State. A private complaint was lodged against them alleging illegal actions.

Findings of Court:
The complaint was filed without proper authority according to the MMDR Act, leading to the conclusion that the anticipatory bail should be granted, subject to specific conditions to ensure compliance with judicial processes.

Issues: Whether the complaint was maintainable under the provisions of the MMDR Act concerning cognizance of offences.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that under the relevant sections of the MMDR Act, a complaint must be authorized by an appropriate authority, rendering the current complaint unmaintainable.

Result: The Criminal Petition is allowed.

Table of Content
1. petition for anticipatory bail and its basis. (Para 1 , 2)
2. allegations regarding illegal quarrying and associated financial claims. (Para 3)
3. cognizance as per mmdr act. (Para 4 , 5)
4. maintainability of complaint assessed. (Para 6)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS)

PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS ANTICIPATORY BAIL PETITION BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, MANDYA REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.532/2023 REGISTERED BY THE GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 4, 4(1A) OF MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATION) ACT, 1957 AND SECTION 3(1),42(1),43 OF KMMC RULES, 1994 AND SAME ARE P/U/S 21 f MMDR ACT AND 44 OF KMMCR, 1994 IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, AT S.R.PATNA.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.532/2023 pending before the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Srirangapatna arising out of PCR No.53/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 , 4(1A) of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act, 1957 and Rules 3(1), 42(1), 43 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (Amendment Rules-2020) is before this Court under Section 4 82 of BNSS, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Private complaint was filed by the Senior Geologist, Mandya against the petitioners herein before the Court of Magistrate at Srirangapatna alleging that the petitioners had carried on illegal activities of quarrying in the Government land and had removed and transported building stone from the Government land and thereby caused a loss of Rs.3,71,560/- to the State Government and it is alleged in the private complaint that machinery and other articles used for the purpose of quarrying by the petitioners were seized from the aforesaid property and thereafter the private complaint was lodged against them.

4. Section 22 of the MMDR Act provides that "no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf of by the Central Government or the State Government".

5. Section 30B of the MMDR Act provides that the offence under the Act shall be tried by the special Court and the Court of Sessions Judge is the designated special Court under the Act.

6. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate who has now issued NBW against the petitioners is not maintainable. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in the said case and considering the nature of allegations found against the petitioners, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners' prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is required to be answered affirmatively.

7. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

The respondent - Police or any other police in the State of Karnataka are directed to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest in C.C.No.532/2023 pending before the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Srirangapatna arising out of PCR No.53/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 , 4(1A) of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act, 1957 and Rules 3(1), 42(1), 43 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (Amendment Rules-2020), subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer in the present case within fifteen days from the date of this order on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

2. The petitioners shall regularly appear before the Trial Court wit

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