M.S.RAJA Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these original petitions arise out of Crime No.332 of 2021 registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi District. The said FIR was registered on 20/8/2021 for the offences under Ss. 448, 379 and 420 of IPC r/w.Sec. 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 on the basis of information given by the Village Administrative Officer, Meelavittan Part I, Thoothukudi. The informant received information that a portion of the stockpile of ilmenite mineral kept in the sealed godown belonging to V.V Mineral group was being illegally transported to V.V Titanium Pigments Private Limited. When he reached its premises, he found that the mineral had already been unloaded from three lorries. The lorries, the empty gunny bags and 39 tonnes of the mineral sand were seized. In the year 2017, the Government of Tamil Nadu had appointed special teams to estimate the actual quantum of beach sand minerals stacked at various places in Thoothukudi District pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble First Bench of the Madras High Court made by order dtd. 11/1/2017 in Suo Motu PIL WP No.1592 of 2015 and W.A No.1168 & 1169 of 2015. The final stock position as far as V.V Minerals, Mullakkadu and Agaram Village was as follows :

(2.) The case of the prosecution as set out in the impugned FIR is that from this godown, there has been an illegal removal and transport of 39 tonnes of ilmenite mineral. To quash the FIR, V.V Titanium Pigments Private Limited filed Crl OP(MD)No.14240 of 2021. Seeking transfer of investigation and its entrustment in the hands of CBI, one M.S.Raja has filed Crl OP(MD)No.13871 of 2021. When petitions seeking anticipatory bail were filed before the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi in connection with this case, M.S.Raja filed petitions to intervene. Those petitions were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Challenging the dismissal orders, Crl OP(MD)Nos.14606 & 14611 and 14614 of 2021 have been filed. Since all the original petitions are inter connected, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The issue of locus standi of M.S.Raja can be taken up first. In this case, the police arrested the persons who had transported the mineral. When they filed bail petitions, M.S.Raja filed Cr.MP Nos.3672, 3870 & 3871 of 2021 for intervening himself. Those petitions were dismissed by the Sessions Court by order dtd. 3/9/2021 on the ground that M.S.Raja did not have locus standi. The said order was not put to challenge by M.S.Raja. Therefore, when he subsequently filed petitions to intervene in the anticipatory bail petitions, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed them too. Of course, the reference to Sec. 362 of Cr.Pc does not appear to be appropriate. But then, the learned Sessions Judge could not have allowed the subsequent petitions for intervention when he had dismissed the earlier intervention petitions filed by M.S.Raja. Judges unlike litigants and lawyers are obliged to be logically consistent.