COMMON ORDER

These criminal original petitions are filed seeking quashment of the PRC No.13 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Padmanabapuram, respectively.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

The de-facto complainant was working as a Village Administrative Officer and he lodged a complaint stating that on 31/05/2011 at about 6.00 am, the Revenue Department officials RDO, Tashildhar, Kalkulam Taluk, Village Administrative Officer of Verkilambi, inspected the place called 'Kayalkarai Pulikattu'. At that time, they found that one Appukuttan, Selvaraj, Manokaran, Chandran, Mohamed Sherif, Palraj and Velkilambi Manokaran were found in committing illegal sand mining activity in survey No.854/2, which is the Government poramboke land. From the place of occurrence, documents as well as the material objects were seized. So on the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, a case in Crime No.86 of 2011 has been registered for the offences under sections 465, 468, 471, 379 IPC and section 8(ii)(iii), 5(a) of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and section 4(1), 4(1-A), 21(i) of Mines and Regulation and Development Act, 1957 r/w 36(4)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Construction Rule, 1859. After completing the formalities of investigation, final report was filed before the committal court namely the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Padmanabapuram, which was taken cognizance in PRC No.13 of 2018. The offences alleged against these petitioners are under sections 465, 468, 471, 379 IPC and 8(ii) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Property Damages and Loss Act, 1992, sections 3(a) and 5(a) of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and section 4(1), 4(1)A, 21(ii) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957 r/w section Rule 36(4)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1859.

3.Seeking quashment of the same, these petitions have been filed by the petitioners on the ground that the second respondent, who is the de-facto complainant is not the authorised person under section 22 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to lodge a complaint. A8 was having valid permission for using the explosives and for conducting quarry operation. She conducted the quarry operation, as per the licence condition and that was undertaken only in her patta land and only for the purpose of blasting the rocks for quarrying activities, she was issued with proper licence, which was also valid upto March' 2017 and the transport licence was also valid upto March 2018 and the 8th accused was granted quarry licence for the period of 5 years from 2006 to 2011. So, explosives have been used for lawful act in which no criminality has been involved.

4.Heard both sides.

5.The petitioners are arrayed as A5, A6 and A8 in the committal proceedings. The allegation against the petitioners is that these petitioners along with other co- accused persons were found using the explosives for blasting the rocks and those persons were found in the place of occurrence itself. From that place, as stated above, articles as well as the documents have been seized by the Revenue Officials, who went on surprise inspection to the site.

6.As mentioned above, it is the case of the prosecution that the 8th accused namely Anitha Rajabai was granted quarry licence in respect of survey Nos.521/3A, 521/4B, Ponmanal Village, Kalkulam Taluk, for a period of five years. The date of order is 19/02/2009. So it is valid upto 2014. The date of occurrence is stated to be 31/05/2011. So according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, quarry operation was carried out in the land, for which licence was also granted. But reading of the FIR shows that illegal quarry operation was carried on in Survey Nos.866/2, 854/1, 854/7, 854/2, 856/12 at Mekottu village, whereas the quarry licence was granted in respect of the above said survey numbers situated in Ponmanal Village, Kalkulam Taluk. It is also seen in the file and during the course of inv