GUNDAPPA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The complainant is the Chief Officer of Kerur Town Panchayat. It is alleged that the petitioners herein, who are excavating silt from the town lake and in the process had damaged and destroyed the fencing that had been put up around the lake and that the excavation of the soil was without the required permission. It is alleged that the soil and silt have been transported by a truck bearing No. KA 49 1927 and a tractor bearing Reg. No. KA 29 4868, a tipper bearing Reg. No. KA 28 B 5751 and a JCB bearing Reg. No. KA 24 M 1738 were also been used for the said purpose. It is further stated that the complainant has been advised not to permit excavation of soil from the lake bed by the District Town Development Cell and the reason being that it was affecting drinking water, and hence, the complainant accordingly asked the petitioners to stop their activity, upon which the petitioners are said to have assaulted him and told him to do whatever he wants. The complaint further reveals that the complainant returned to office and had started writing down the complaint to be submitted to the jurisdictional police and that at around 12 noon all the accused, who had by then consumed alcohol, barged into the office and assaulted the complainant and the Junior Engineer Y.B. Jogi. They also broke the steel chairs using stones and the complainant and another have abused used in filthy language. It is also alleged that they were restrained from discharging their duties.

(2.) It is submitted that pursuant to the complainant offences have been registered under Sections 4(1), 4(1-A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 31 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Section 70 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Apart from the offences, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had approached the Court of the District and Sessions Judge at Bagalkot. The Trial Court has been pleased to reject the petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on the premise that if such a petition is entertained and if a relief is granted it would send out a wrong message to the society and would also indirectly encourage people to indulge in similar activities.

(3.) The petitioners' Counsel would submit that the petitioners are all villagers and that they were removing the soil for bona fide use only and he would further submit that there was a Town Panchayat Resolution which permitted the villagers to remove the sand from the lake bed and he would submit that the allegation of assault on the public servant is false and incorrect, and hence, prays that the petition be allowed and the respondents be restrained from arresting the petitioners.