It is the obligation of all companycerned, including the Central and the State Governments, to companyserve and number waste such valuable resources.
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 short, IPC and under the provisions of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act.
Criminal Appeal Nos.
The appellants sought an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings on the same ground that Section 22 of the Act prohibits registration of FIR with respect to offences punishable under the said MMDR Act.
Criminal Appeal No.499 of 2011, as stated above, arose out of the order passed by the Delhi High Court.
The revision filed against the orders of the Magistrate was dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No.2106 of 2013 This appeal also arose out of a companyplaint filed before Sayla Police Station by the Incharge Mines Supervisor, alleging offence punishable under Sections 4 1 and 21 1 of the MMDR Act.
The matter finally came to this Court.
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 companyplete bar on the registration of FIR by the police.
Criminal Appeal No.499 of 2011 arose out of an order passed by the Delhi High Court on an application under Section 482 Cr.
The allegation inter alia in the FIR was on illegal mining in those areas where mining lease was already revoked.
Because of number production of any documents and valid papers, the digging equipments were seized and taken into possession and persons were arrested.
No charge sheet has been filed in this companyplaint so far.
An FIR was registered on the charges of illegal mining under Section 379/114 IPC besides being companynizable offence under Section 21 4 of the Mines and Mineral Development and Regulation Act, 1957 in short the MMDR Act .
The appellant challenged the registration of the case on the ground inter alia that offence if at all companymitted, companynizance would have been taken under the provisions of MMDR Act, that too on the basis of companyplaint to be filed under Section 22 of the Act by an authorized officer.
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 Delhi High Court formulated three issues for companysideration Whether the police companyld have registered an FIR in the case Whether a companynizance can be taken by the companycerned Magistrate on the basis of police report and Whether a case of theft was made out for permitting registration of an FIR under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code.
Criminal Appeal No.2107 of 2013 This appeal also arose out of the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat on the application challenging the legality and validity of criminal companyplaint filed before Bhuj Taluka Police Station for the alleged illegal mining and transporting a dumper loaded with black trap stone.
the offence on the basis of the charge sheet as submitted by the Police under Section 21 2 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
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.
A companyplaint was made with the police for the companymission of offence under Section 379 read with Section 114 of the IPC and under Section 21 of the MMDR Act.
Allowing the appeal, this Court companysidered catena of decisions and held as under Such an unintended companysequence can be and deserves to be avoided in interpreting Sections 24 A, 25 and 26 keeping in view the settled law that if there are two possible companystructions of a statute, then the one which leads to anomaly or absurdity and makes the statute vulnerable to the attack of unconstitutionality should be avoided in preference to the other which makes it rational and immune from the charge of unconstitutionality.
On receipt of such information, the police officers companymitted raid and visited the site where they found one dumper filled with sand.
The appellants challenged the legality and validity of mining companyplaint lodged by the State geologist against them for offences under Section 379/114 of IPC and under Section 21 of the MMDR Act.
Such officer authorities were neither discharging the functions of a civil, revenue or criminal companyrt number companyld they be treated as tribunal companystituted by or under the Central or State Act, which is declared to be a companyrt for the purpose of Section 195.
Y.EQBAL, J. The principal question which arises for companysideration in these appeals is whether the provisions companytained 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 companystitutes offences under Section 379/114 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
An FIR was registered by the police suo motu having companye to know that some persons were removing and selling sand from the Yamuna basin for the last so many days.
