BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No.395 of 2007 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Velur Police Station, Namakkal District, pending investigation.) The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the above Criminal Original Petition are set out below:- On a complaint lodged by Thiru M.Ravindran, Village Administrative Officer, Velur, Paramathivelur Taluk, Namakkal District, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.395 of 2007 on his file for the offences under Sections 379 IPC read with Sections 4 (1) (A) and 21 (1) (C) (ii) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Act No.67 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the petitioners herein.

(2.) THE sum and substance of the allegations in the complaint is that at 11.00 a.m. on 03.08.2007 the informant found four lorries on Velur to Mohanur Road bearing the following registration numbers, TN40-A-5463, TN28-B-5477, TN37-W-3916 and TN37-H-9944. THE lorries were being driven by the petitioners herein, the lorries were stopped and searched and it was found that the lorries were carrying sand and on enquiry it was found that sand was being transported from Sri Rama Samuthram Area and the petitioners were transporting sand more than the permitted limit and hence the Village Administrative Officer caused weighment of the lorries at Sri Karthic Weigh Bridge, Pothanur and found that all the four lorries were carrying sand over and above the permitted quantity and thus they had committed theft of sand belonging to the Government worth about Rs.3,672/-.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner basing reliance on a decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in 1995 CRI. L.J. 3810 (K. Srinivas v. State of Karnataka) and another decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in (2006) 2 M.L.J. (Crl.) 115 (D. Sudharshan v. State) which has followed the said decision submitted that when special enactment has been invoked to deal with the offences invoking general provisions of Indian Penal Code will be meaningless since the special enactment will override the general provisions of law and specific provisions will override the other provisions. In (2006) 2 M.L.J. (Crl.) 115 (referred to supra) Mr. Justice R. Regupathi after referring to the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in 1995 CRI. L.J. 3816 (referred to supra) has in paragraph 5 observed as under:- "5. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made by both sides. Admittedly, the Village Administrative Officer is not an authorized person by the State Government to proceed against the accused for the offence alleged in the FIR. Under such circumstance, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely applicable to the present case. Merely because, the general provisions of Indian Penal Code is included, it cannot be contended that the respondent-police has got the jurisdiction to investigate the offence. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that special enactment will over-ride the general provisions of law and specific provisions will over-ride the other provisions. Under such circumstance, I find that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings."