SAYYAD MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On information furnished by the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, the Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam filed a complaint under Section 4 (1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short The Act') against the petitioners for their being in possession of colour stones, and the same was taken cognizance of by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and is numbered as C.C. No. 512 of 2002. This petition is filed to quash the said proceedings.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that apart from the fact that the complaint is hopelessly barred by time, even assuming that all the allegations in the complaint are true, no offence is made out from the allegations therein under Section 4(1) of the Act, as that section applies only to mining without licence, and since it is not even the case of the prosecution that petitioners are prospecting or carried out any mining operations in any area. He placed a strong reliance on Chandesivar Prosad Singh and another, Petitioners v. Sub Divisional Land Reforms Officer, Barrackpore and others, Respondents in support of his contention. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Section 4(1) of the Act reads: