Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 861 (AP)

Sayyad Mohd. v. State Of A. P.

2004-08-17

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2004
( 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:"prospecting or mining operations to be under license or lease: 1. No person shall undertake any prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting license or, as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made there under. "sections 21 and 22 of the Act reads: section 21. Penalties (1): Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 4 shall be punished (with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees) or with both. Section 22. Cognizance of offences: No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made there under except upon compliant in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central government or the State Government. Section 22. Cognizance of offences: No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made there under except upon compliant in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central government or the State Government. ( 4 ) ONE of the contentions raised is that since the time taken for obtaining sanction from the concerned has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation, the complaint cannot be said tohave been barred by time. No provision in the Act which lays down that permission from competent authority is required for filing of the complaint is brought to my notice. In fact section 22 of the Act (extracted above) lays down that persons authorized by the Central or the State Governments can file the complaints for offences under the Act. The complaint (charge sheet) filed against the petitioners itself states that as per G. O. Ms. No. 1653 of Industries and Commerce department, dated 16-12-1976, the Assistant director of Mines and Geology is authorized to file complaints under the Act. Therefore, even without obtaining permission from anybody, Assistant Director of Mines and geology could file a complaint within the period of limitation. ( 5 ) THE averments in the complaint show that petitioners, on 1-11-1996, were found in possession of precious stones. The complaint was filed on 20-11-2001 and it was taken on file on 22-11-2001. As per Section 468 (2) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, the period of limitation is three years. Since the offence, if any, was committed on 1-11-1996, (when petitioners were found in possession of precious stones) the complaint should have been filed on or before 1-11-1999 but since the charge sheet was filed in 2001, the charge sheet is clearly barred by time. ( 6 ) LIMITATION apart, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, even assuming that all the allegations in the complaint are true, petitioners cannot be said to have c6mmitted an offence under section 4 (1) of the Act, because as per that section, undertaking any prospecting or carrying out mining operations without license only is an offence, but possession of any extracted minerals is not an offence. In fact in Chandeswar Prosad Singh case (supra 1) relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners is held that prohibition under section 4 (1) of the Act is confined to mining operations only but not to the user of the mineral extracts, and so even assuming that all the allegations in the complaint are true, no offence under Section 4 (1) can be said to have been committed by the petitioners. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the petition deserves to be and hence is allowed and the proceedings in c. C. No. 512 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, visakhapatnam are quashed.