N MANZOOR AHMED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1547/10 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet. It is the case of the petitioners that despite they having mining licence and stock yard permission, the case has been filed against them by the complainant for offences under Sec. 4(1), 4(1)(a) and 21(1) to (6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 for short MMDR Act and Sec. 379 IPC. A complaint came to be filed before the JMFC, Hospet on 4.9.2010 against the petitioners under Sec. 200 Cr. P.C. alleging that the petitioners had taken stock yard licence for storing iron ore and are processing the same from the mining area and the said process could be done only after paying royalty as per Sec. 9 of the MMDR Act and for further transportation of the same, permission is required from the Department. It is the case of the complainant that the accused have not taken licence nor the permission for transportation of iron ore. It is further submitted that on 05.6.2010 when an inspection was undertaken in Sy. Nos. 63/A and 64 of Voddarahalli village of Hospet taluk, it was found that there was no iron ore stocked in the said area and thereafter when an inspection was again done on 5.9.10, it was found that the iron ore has been stocked unauthorizedly and accordingly, through a panchanama, iron ore was seized. It is submitted before the Court that the said iron ore was stocked without taking any permission under MMDR Act, 1957 and therefore, an offence under Sec. 4(1), 4(1)(a) and 21(1) to (6) has been committed and that the iron ore weighing about 55,660 metric tons has been unauthorisedly stored in the said premises. It is further stated in the complaint that it is compulsory for taking permission from the Mines and Geology Department for transportation of iron ore. It is also stated that the iron ore weighing about 55,600 metric tons has been brought and stocked at that place from, some other place without permission and therefore, a panchanama was drawn on 3.9.10 and the iron ore was confiscated to the State. It is further stated in the complaint that A-1 and A-2 have not obtained licence for stockyard and for having not paid the royalty as per he provision of the MMDR Act, they are alleged to have committed an offence under Sec. 4(1), 4(1)(a) r/w 21(1) to (6) of the MMDR Act and therefore, it is prayed that the cognizance may be taken of the said offence.

(2.) The learned Magistrate on a perusal of the complaint, has ordered thus:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the said order of the learned Magistrate dated 06.9.10 taking cognizance of the offence is a sheer abuse of law and therefore, he submits that the same may be set aside and the proceedings in CC. 1547/10 may be quashed. He submitted that the father of petitioner No. 1 had a licence prior to 24.11.05 and on an application filed by the petitioners, the said licence for mining lease has been renewed for a period of 20 years and that on the date of the seizure, the said mining lease-was in operation. He has produced a copy of the mining lease as per Annexure-E. He has further submitted that the stock yard licence has been granted to him by the Director of Mines in respect of Sy. Nos. 63/A and 64 in all 5 acres 58 cents as per Annexure-F. The said stack yard permission is also valid as on the date of filing of the complaint. It is further submitted by him that the application has been filed to issue permit for despatching the ore and mines, the copy of which has been produced along with the petition. He also submits that a sum of Rs. 29,82,000/- has been paid as royalty charges to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology and copy of the said demand draft has been produced along with the petition. It is the submission of the petitioner that inspite of royalty being paid and an application being filed for establishing a stock yard in the mining area, the complainant has raided the premises and has filed the charge sheet which is a sheer abuse of process of law. Hence, he submits that the proceedings are liable to he quashed. It is further submitted by him that the learned Magistrate without looking into the facts of this case has mechanically ordered for issue of process and therefore, he submits that the said order issuing summons to the petitioner is without application of mind and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.