DUVVADA SRINIVAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA (VIGILANCE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed to quash the F.I.R. and the proceeding in Vigilance G.R. case No.37 of 2012 on the file of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur arising out of Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No.37 of 2012 registered under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) The F.I.R. was lodged by one D.S.P. Vigilance, Parlakhemundi mentioning that on getting some allegation of illegal mining and transportation of decorative stones from Logu decorative stone quarry in village Logu under Paralakhemundi Tahasil of Gajapati district by the present petitioner, enquiry was taken up. In course of enquiry it revealed that the present petitioner made an application for quarry lease for colour decorative stone over an area 25,865 hector in village Logu and after observing necessary formalities on consideration of his application, lease-deed was executed by the Mining Department in favour of the present petitioner in respect of an area 27.599 hectors over Plot nos.150 and 152 in village Logu on 12.09.2000. Prior to execution of the deed, the area was demarcated by the then Senior Surveyor of Mining Department one Shri T.D. Rao. Thereafter, the petitioner continued the mining operation. On 23.10.2009, the Assistant Mining Officer, Gajapati reported to the Mining Officer, Ganjam Circle regarding missing of boundary pillars over the said lease area of the present petitioner for which the Mining Officer deputed one Senior Surveyor Shri Jugal Kishore Sahu to check and demarcate the lease area. The surveyor reported that the tri-junction stone was not tallying with the permanent features available in the filed. Considering the discrepancies, the Mining Officer informed the Director of Mines, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to depute the State Legal Enforcement squad to survey and demarcate the aforesaid lease area. On 28.01.2010, the said squad consisting of the Deputy Director of Mines, Forest Officer, Chief Surveyor and police personnel visited the area of the present petitioner and found out that the present petitioner had been operating the mining activity, trespassing over an area measuring 8.036 hectors in Plot no.153 beyond his granted lease hold area of Plot nos.150 and 152. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the present petitioner without any authority had deliberately trespassed beyond lease hold area by shifting boundary pillars and thereby had unlawfully raised 25,900,800 cubit meters of colour decorative stones from the site of the trespassed area of 8.036 hectors by illegal mining. It was alleged that the cost of the said unlawfully raised stones would be Rs.18,13,00,000/-. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. by naming the different officers of the Mining Department between the periods 2000 to 2010 that the present petitioner in connivance with the said officers illegally raised decorative stones from outside the granted lease area thereby causing huge loss to the State exchequer. Pursuant to the F.I.R., the case was registered and the investigation was taken up.

(3.) It is submitted by the leaned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not at all at fault to have exceeded beyond the granted surface area for which he was granted with lease and has carried on his mining operation within the area as was demarcated at the time of execution of the lease-deed. The main contention that has been advanced in the present case is that the petitioner by exercising his right under the R.T.I. Act obtained a copy of the letter vide Annexure-2 attached to the application, which was written by the Director of Mines, Odisha, Bhubaneswar addressed to the Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Steel and Mines, mentioning therein that the lessee, the present petitioner, had no fault in doing the mining operation over the area which was subsequently identified to be the illegal mining since it happened only due to wrong demarcation made by the then Senior Surveyor Shri T.D. Rao, who has already expired. It has been mentioned therein that although the petitioner was granted with the permission over an area 27.599 hectors in Plot nos.150 and 152 in village Logu still the then surveyor wrongly demarcated the same including the area over 8.036 hectors coming under the revenue Plot no. 153 and hence, the lessee was not at all at fault for exceeding the limit for which he was granted with lease. Stressing on the said letter of the Director of Mines, it was contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as an accused having committed no fault.