Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3340
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. AHLUWALIA, J
Amol Singh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 2555/2023
Bhupendra Singh Dhakad,Advocate General
The court upheld that a Panchayat Secretary can be presumed liable for illegal storage of minerals based on witness testimony, despite lacking documentary evidence.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 379, 411 - Quashment of FIR - Applicant, a Panchayat Secretary, accused of storing sand illegally - Court held that the Panchayat cannot be made an accused for storing sand for public works under M.P. Mineral Rules, 2022 - However, ocular evidence from a witness established the applicant's involvement - The absence of documentary proof does not negate the witness's statement - Application for quashment dismissed. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Environmental Law - Illegal excavation of minerals causes ecological damage - The State must take stringent action against violators to protect public property and restore ecological balance. (Paras 18-19)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was accused of illegally storing sand, claimed to be for public works, based on a witness's statement. The applicant argued that the sand was stored legally under the M.P. Mineral Rules, but the court found insufficient evidence to support this claim.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the witness's statement was credible and established the applicant's involvement in the alleged crime, leading to the dismissal of the quashment application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant could be held liable for the alleged illegal storage of sand based on the witness's statement and the applicability of the M.P. Mineral Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Panchayat Secretary could be presumed to have stored the sand based on the witness's statement, despite the lack of documentary evidence. The court emphasized the need for strict enforcement against illegal mining activities to protect the environment.
Result: Application dismissed.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.300/2022 registered at Police Station Badarwas, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 379 , 411 IPC .
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that applicant was working as Panchayat Secretary. Sand was found stored in the house of Narendra Yadav who has stated that the sand was stored by applicant and on the statement made by Narendra Yadav applicant has been arrayed as an accused in Crime No.300/2022 registered at Police Station Badarwas, District Shivpuri (M.P.).
3. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that since applicant was working as Secretary and the sand was stored for the purposes of constructing CC road therefore, in view of Rules 3, 4 of M.P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules , 2022 (for brevity “Rules, 2022”), Panchayat cannot be made an accused. It is further submitted that the entire case is based on ocular evidence of Narendra Yadav and there is nothing on record to show that it was applicant who had stored sand in the house of Narendra Yadav. It is further submitted that even otherwise Narendra Yadav has specifically stated that sand was stored for the purposes of constructing CC road in front of his house.
4. Heard learned counsel for applicant.
5. So far as applicability of Rules 3, 4 of Rules, 2022 is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that the exception under Rule 4 of Rules, 2022 has been granted to the Gram Panchayat for transportation and storage of minor minerals quarried from the Government lands for public works. This rule cannot be interpreted to the extent that the Gram Panchayat can commit theft or can illegally excavate the sand. State Government is the owner of every mineral and therefore the illegal excavation of the same would certainly amount to commission of theft. Further, so far as the submission made by counsel for applicant that the sand in question was stored for the purposes of constructing CC road in front of the house of Narendra Yadav is concerned, the counsel for applicant has developed his argument on the basis of the document Annexure P-4 to show that a CC road was sanctioned from Aadiwasi Basti to Ghurwar. It was fairly conceded by Shri Dhakad that Ghurwar and Rijaudi are two separate villages and Ghurwar falls within the Gram Panchayat Rijaudi.
6. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether the aforesaid document which has been filed by applicant can be considered to be a document to show that the CC road was being constructed in front of the house of Narendra Yadav or not?
7. The case diary has been produced. From the statement of Narendra Yadav, it is clear that he is the resident of village Rijaudi and not Ghurwar. Thus, the measurement book which has been relied upon by applicant to show that the sand was stored for the purpose of construction of CC road in front of the house of Narendra Yadav is not supported by the documents filed by applicant. It is not the case of applicant that the sand was purchased by the Gram Panchayat. Counsel for applicant could not point out any provision of law which authorizes the Gram Panchayat to illegally excavate the sand. Furthermore, it is not the case of applicant, that the sand in question was quarried from Govt. land in legal manner. So far as the absence of documentary proof to show that it was applicant who had stored the sand in question is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that the prosecution can prove its case on the basis of ocular evidence or documentary evidence or on the basis of both documentary and ocular evidence. Merely because no documentary evidence has been collected by the police to show that the sand was stored by applicant, this Court is of considered opinion that this Court cannot ignore the statement of Narendra Yadav which was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which he had specifically stated that the sand was stor
