9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 1146 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act explicitly or impliedly excludes the provisions of Indian Penal Code when the act of an accused is an offence both under the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act? Held that - It is well known principle that the rule against double jeopardy is based on a maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa, which means no man shall be put in jeopardy twice for one and the same offence. Article 20 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the offence more than once. However, it is also settled that a subsequent trial or a prosecution and punishment has no bar if the ingredients of the two offences are distinct. There cannot be any two opinions that natural resources are the assets of the nation and its citizens. It is the obligation of all concerned, including the Central and the State Governments, to conserve and not waste such valuable resources. Article 48A of the Constitution requires that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Similarly, Article 51A enjoins a duty upon every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for all the living creatures. In view of the Constitutional provisions, the Doctrine of Public Trust has become the law of the land. The said doctrine rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and forests are of such great importance to the people as a whole that it would be highly unjustifiable to make them a subject of private ownership. There is no complete and absolute bar in prosecuting persons under the Indian Penal Code where the offences committed by persons are penal and cognizable offence. Considering the principles of interpretation and the wordings used in Section 22, it can be said that the provision is not a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals including sand from the river bed. The ingredients constituting the offence under the MMDR Act and the ingredients of dishonestly removing sand and gravel from the river beds without consent, which is the property of the State, is a distinct offence under the Indian Penal Code. Hence, for the commission of offence Under Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorized officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMRD Act. Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) bar prosecution under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for illegal mining. 2. Whether the police can register an FIR for illegal mining under the IPC. 3. Whether the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under the IPC based on a police report. 4. Whether the acts of illegal mining constitute theft under Section 379 of the IPC. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Bar on Prosecution under IPC by MMDR Act The primary question was whether the MMDR Act provisions, specifically Sections 21 and 22, bar prosecution under the IPC for acts constituting offences under both statutes. The judgment clarified that the MMDR Act does not explicitly or impliedly exclude the IPC provisions when the act of an accused constitutes an offence under both laws. The court emphasized that the MMDR Act and IPC could operate concurrently, and the provisions of the MMDR Act do not create an absolute bar on prosecuting offences under the IPC. Issue 2: Police Registration of FIR for Illegal Mining The court examined whether the police could register an FIR for illegal mining under the IPC. It was concluded that the police have the authority to register an FIR for cognizable offences under the IPC, such as theft under Section 379, even if the act also constitutes an offence under the MMDR Act. The judgment highlighted that the police's duty to prevent and prosecute cognizable offences is not negated by the MMDR Act. Issue 3: Magistrate's Cognizance Based on Police Report The court addressed whether a Magistrate could take cognizance of an offence under the IPC based on a police report. It was held that the Magistrate could take cognizance of offences under the IPC based on the police report, independent of the MMDR Act's provisions. The court clarified that the restriction under Section 22 of the MMDR Act applies only to offences under the Act and does not extend to IPC offences. Issue 4: Illegal Mining as Theft under IPC The judgment analyzed whether acts of illegal mining could be prosecuted as theft under Section 379 of the IPC. The court concluded that illegal mining, involving the dishonest removal of minerals from the possession of the State without consent, constitutes theft under Section 379 of the IPC. The ingredients of the offence under the MMDR Act and the IPC were found to be distinct, allowing for concurrent prosecution under both statutes. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the MMDR Act does not bar prosecution under the IPC for illegal mining activities. The police can register FIRs for cognizable offences under the IPC, and Magistrates can take cognizance based on police reports. Acts of illegal mining can be prosecuted as theft under Section 379 of the IPC, as the ingredients of the offences under the MMDR Act and the IPC are distinct. The judgment overruled contrary views taken by different High Courts and directed Magistrates to proceed accordingly.
|
