Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Vasudevan – Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputtur Taluk Police Station – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of prosecution's case (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding evidence and charges (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 28 , 29) |
| 3. evidence of illegal quarrying and harm (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. legal interpretations of theft and quarrying (Para 20 , 24 , 33) |
| 5. final decisions on sentencing and legal processes (Para 34 , 35) |
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
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 pros....
Cognizance for offenses under the MMDR Act requires an authorized officer's complaint, not a police report; theft allegations fail when removal is from one's own land for agricultural purposes.
Cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act requires a complaint from an authorized person; without it, proceedings cannot be sustained.
Cognizance for offences under mining statutes requires a written complaint by an authorized officer; IPC cognizance valid if essential theft elements are met.
The court emphasized the distinct nature of offences under the MMDR Act and the IPC, highlighting the interpretation of Section 22 of the MMDR Act and the ingredients constituting the offence of thef....
The provisions of Section 22 of the MMDR Act do not operate as a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals, and the police hav....
The court established that prior judicial findings and inspections must be respected, and any new claims of violations require proper notice and participation of the affected parties.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
