MOHD MOINUDDIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Mandal Revenue Officer, Yadagirigutta, gave a report to the Station House Officer, Yadagirigutta P.S., stating that Madothu Bheemudu excavated the land in S.No.311/9 at the outskirts of Jangampally village with the help of petitioners and others for treasure-trove hunt illegally by using explosive substances and so necessary action may be taken against the petitioners. The said report was registered under Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 20 of Treasure Trove Act as Crime No.87 of 2001. The Sub-Inspector of Police during the course of investigation arrested some of the persons mentioned in the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and produced them before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir, for offence under Section 20 of Indian Treasure Trove Act read with Sections 34 and 511 IPC. This petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the FIR, in Crime No.87 of 2001 against them.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that though the FIR, was originally registered under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act also, the said sections are deleted in the remand report, and the offence alleged now is only under Section 20 of the Treasure Trove Act read with Section 34 and 511 IPC. It is his contention that Sections 34 and 511 IPC, cannot be invoked with Sections 20 of the Treasure Trove Act and since the provisions of Section 20 of Treasure Trove Act have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case, the further proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Section 20 of Treasure Trove Act as applicable to Andhra Pradesh reads: