BASALINGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated in C.C. No.642/2018, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramdurg, for the offences under Section 4(1A) read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act , 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MMDR Act ', for short)and under Rules 3, 32, 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the KMMC Rules').

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint has been filed by the PSI, Katakol Police Station, but as per Section 22 of the MMDR Act, a private complaint has to be filed only by an Authorised Officer. It is his further submission that as per the complaint, it is the son of the present petitioner/accused who was driving the tractor at the time of seizure. As per Section 4(1A) of the MMDR Act, the owner of the vehicle is not covered. Even in Section 21 of the MMDR Act, nowhere it is contemplated that the owner of the vehicle is to be punished for the said offence. It is his further submission that Rules 3, 32 and 44 of the KMMC Rules are not applicable; it only states with regard to quarry licence and the quarry licence has nothing to do with the present case. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused is, in no way, connected to the alleged crime; he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is his further submission that the search and seizure, which has been made by the PSI, is not a legal search and seizure as the same has to be done by a Gazetted Officer or of the rank of a Gazetted Officer or the Authorised Officer. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings.