The conviction for illegal quarrying under Sections 379 IPC and Section 3(1) TNPPDL Act was upheld due to sufficient evidence, while the overlap of charges under various laws does not invalidate prosecution if proper intent is established.

JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction made in S.C.No.8 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputtur Taluk Police Station laid a final report against the appellant/accused that the defacto complainant is a retired teacher residing at Nachiyarpatti and the accused belongs to the same village, that the accused has got quarry permit for the land in Survey No.319/3 for the period from 10.02.2004 to 09.02.2009 and during the said permit period, the accused also quarried mineral found in the adjacent lands in Survey No.588/12 classified as cart track poromboke and Survey No.588/14 classified as lake poromboke with an intention to commit the theft of the same, that the accused had quarried about 5181 units of stones without any permit and thereby caused loss of Rs.18,13,350/- to the Government, that the accused also caused damage to the Government property and to correct the same, the Government has to incur Rs.18,58,144/-, that the defacto complainant made petitions against the accused and hence, the accused threatened him with dire consequences and that the accused thereby had committed the offences under Sections 379 and 506(i) I.P.C., and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur took the charge sheet on file in P.R.C.No.17 of 2018 and furnished the copies of the records under Section 207 Cr.P.C., on free of costs. The learned Judicial Magistrate finding that the offence under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after the compliance under Sections 208 and 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Srivilliputtur and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.8 of 2019.

4. After the appearance of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, being satisfied there existed a prima facie case against the accused, framed the charges under Sections 379 and 506(i) I.P.C., and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 against the accused and the same were read over and explained to him and on being questioned, the accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and exhibited 9 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9 and marked one material object as M.O.1.

6. The case of the prosecution emerging from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(a) P.W.1 – Balakrishnan, the defacto complainant, a retired teacher, is residing at Nachiyarpatti Village. PW.3 Gurusamy is working in a cracker manufacturing company. The accused also belongs to the same village of Nachiyarpatti. The land in Survey No.588/11 of Ayan Nachiyarpatti Village is owned by the accused. The accused was granted lease to operate a stone quarry in Survey No.588/11 of Ayan Nachiyarpatti Village and Survey No.319/3 of Achamthavilthan Village for the period of five years by the order of the District Collector dated 27.01.2004 under Ex.P.5, but the accused had quarried stones in the adjacent lands in Survey No.588/12 classified as cart track poromboke and the land in Survey No.58/14 classified as lake poromboke.

(b) P.W.1 sent so many complaint to various authorities, but there was no action. Hence, he filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14849 of 2010 seeking registration of the case and obtained orders on 18.10.2012. In pursu