SUDARSANAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the sixth accused in a case pending in C.C. No. 285 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri for offences under Sections 120(b) r/w. 447, 439 IPC and Section 21(1) r/w 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development Act 1957), 420, 434, 466, 468, 451, 380, 406 and 201 r/w 109 IPC seeks to quash the proceedings as against him. Such case is one which alleges criminal trespass into Government land and theft through illicit mining committed therein. Accused 1 and 2 are the prime offenders. THE charge against the present petitioner, who is the 6th accused is that he has screened the offences committed by the A1 & A2, which itself is an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.

(2.) LEARNED Senior Counsel Mr. K.M. Vijayan appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein, who was an Assistant Geologist in the Mining and Minerals Department was the first person to inform the Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals, Dharmapuri of the wrong doing committed by the A1 & A2. This, he had done under a detailed letter dated 12.06.1996. The complaint in the case had been preferred on 28.04.1997 and informs that the preliminary report of the District Revenue Officer reveals that the Government staff tampered the Government records to benefit the firm by name Rajalakshmi Enterprises i.e. the firm of the A1 & A2. The preliminary enquiry had been ordered, since scrutiny of records by the Assistant Director revealed that the markings of the leased out area in the sketches had been changed and that an excess area of about 1.96 acres had been added subsequently after the lease deed with Rajalakshmi Enterprises was registered.

(3.) ON perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the contention of the learned Senior Counsel calls for immediate acceptance. The charge against the petitioner is only respect of an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The fact that the petitioner indeed had informed his higher officials of what he had discovered on 11.06.1996 stands undisputed. Therefore, the petitioner ought not to be harassed any further.