Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2011

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI … Appellant(s)

Versus

SANJAY

… Respondent(s)

with

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2105 OF 2013

JAYSUKH BAVANJI SHINGALIA

… Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER … Respondent(s)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2108-2112 of 2013

MALABHAI SHALABHAI RABARI AND OTHERS … Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS

…

Respondent(s)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2107 of 2013

KALUBHAI DULABHAI KHACHAR … Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER … Respondent(s)

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2106 of 2013

SONDABHAI HANUBHAI BHARWAD … Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.Y.EQBAL, J.

1.

The principal question which arises for consideration in

these appeals is whether the provisions contained in Sections

21, 22 and other sections of Mines and Minerals (Development

and Regulation) Act, 1957 operate as bar against prosecution

of a person who has been charged with allegation which

constitutes offences under Section 379/114 and other

provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In other words, whether

the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act explicitly or impliedly

excludes the provisions of Indian Penal Code when the act of an

accused is an offence both under the Indian Penal Code (in

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

short, ‘IPC’) and under the provisions of Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Act.

2.

Criminal Appeal No.499 of 2011 arose out of an order

passed by the Delhi High Court on an application under Section

482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR registered at Police

Station Alipur under Sections 379/114/120B/34 IPC on the

allegation that appellant was involved in illegal mining of sand

from the Yamuna basin. An FIR was registered by the police

suo motu having come to know that some persons were

removing and selling sand from the Yamuna basin for the last

so many days. On receipt of such information, the police

officers committed raid and visited the site where they found

one dumper filled with sand. Because of non-production of any

documents and valid papers, the digging equipments were

seized and taken into possession and persons were arrested.

An FIR was registered on the charges of illegal mining under

Section 379/114 IPC besides being cognizable offence under

Section 21 (4) of the Mines and Mineral (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short the MMDR Act).

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

3.

The appellant challenged the registration of the case on

the ground inter alia that offence if at all committed,

cognizance would have been taken under the provisions of

MMDR Act, that too on the basis of complaint to be filed under

Section 22 of the Act by an authorized officer.

4.

Criminal Appeal No.2105 of 2013

Similarly this case arose out of an order passed by the

Gujarat High Court on an application filed by the appellant

seeking quashing of the FIR on various grounds inter alia that

Section 22 of the MMDR Act put a complete bar on the

registration of FIR by the police. The allegation inter alia in the

FIR was on illegal mining in those areas where mining lease

was already revoked.

5.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2108-2112 of 2013

In these cases, appellants are the owners of Murlidhar

Stone Industries and were granted quarry lease in the seam of

Village Thoriwari for excavation of mines and minerals on

payment of royalty. The appellants challenged the legality and

4

Page 5

JUDGMENT

validity of mining complaint lodged by the State geologist

against them for offences under Section 379/114 of IPC and

under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. The appellants sought an

appropriate writ or direction to quash and set asi