BALAPPA RAMA DHANAGAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-state.

(2.) The factual matrix of this case is that on 16.04.2018 at about 6.00 P.M. the complainant was on patrolling duty near the Ambedkar Circle, Athani has received credible information that a tractor-trailor loaded with sand was being transported illegally, thereafter the complainant along with staff and panchas at 6.20 p.m. left Athani Police Station and proceeded towards the spot and observed that one tractor-trailor was coming from Dodawad towards Satti and they intercepted and stopped the said vehicle and the driver of the vehicle ran away. On enquiry, it was revealed that without having any pass or permit the driver and the owner of the vehicle were involved in illegal sand mining and seized the tractor-trailor along with 1 brass of sand worth Rs.3,000/- in the presence of panchas. Therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint. Thereafter, the case has been registered for the offences under Section 379 of IPC and under Sections 4(1), 4(1A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, the 'Act') and under Rules 3, 32 and 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994 (for short 'Rules').

(3.) The main contention of the petitioner in this case is that he has not committed any of the offence as alleged against him and there is a bar under Section 22 of the Act and the Rules and the complainant suo moto registered the case and invoked the offences under the Act and the Rules. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in the case of State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjay, 2015 AIR(SC) 75 with Jaysukh Bavanji Shingalia Vs. State of Gujarat and Another with Malabhai Shalabhai Rabari & Others Vs. State of Gujarat & Others with Kalubhai Dulabhai Khachar Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, wherein it is held that there is bar to take cognizance and only on a private complaint filed by the Authorized Officer the Court can take the cognizance. Hence, the petition is liable to be quashed.