A.Ramakrishnan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 23.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH A.Ramakrishnan .. Petitioner Vs.
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Villoor Police Station, Madurai District.
Crime No.74 of 2023 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 10.01.2024 passed by the learned Special District Judge, Special District Court to deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the Provisions of the Mines & Minerals (D&R) Act, 1/9
Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.5954 of 2023 in Crime No.74 of 2023 and set aside the same as illegal by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
With the consent of both Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the alleged vehicle which is a tractor bearing Registration No.TN 58 AZ 3360 and a trailer bearing Registration No.TN 58 E 7390 and by using the said vehicle, the red sand has been taken away from the patta land of one Thangamari and 2/9
hence, a case was registered in Crime No.74 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of IPC and 4(1) (1A) and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (D & R) Act, 1957 and thereafter, the said vehicle was seized and produced before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate and the same is being in the custody of the Court in RPR No.350 of 2023. He would further submit that the FIR was challenged before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1155 of 2024 and the FIR was quashed vide order dated 29.01.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.5954 of 2023 before the Court below seeking return of the vehicle and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the trial Court negatived the relief sought for by the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C(MD) No.470 of 2023 dated 11.10.2023. However, the scenario has completely changed as the FIR which is the basis for the prosecution has already been quashed by this Court, subsequent to the impugned 3/9
order of the trial Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the Criminal Revision.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would admit the fact that FIR has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2024 passed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1155 of 2024.
5. It is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that in view of the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.646 of 2024 in Annadurai Vs. The Inspector of Police, Kurisilapet Police station, Thirupathur District, the present case has to be remanded back to the concerned Judicial Magistrate for deciding the matter. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder :
"30.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the legal position can be summarised as under:
(a)The power to initiate confiscation proceedings and issue directions for release/disposal of the property under Section 21(4-A) of the MMDR 4/9
Act, 1957 lies with the Court and not with any other authority;
(b)Section 21(4-A) expressly states that the Court competent to initiate confiscation proceedings and issue directions for the disposal of the seized material is the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 21(1) of the Act;
(c)The Special Court constituted under Section 30-B of the MMDR Act, 1957 is invested with the powers of a Court of Session under Section 30-C. Consequently, the Special Court being a Court of Session cannot directly take cognizance of an offence under the Act in view of the bar contained in Section 193 Cr.P.C and in the light of the law laid down in paragraph 38 of the decision in Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62;
(d)As a consequence, a complaint under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 can be filed only before the jurisdictional Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence (State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772, Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 14 SCC 331and Jayant v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 670), and not before the Special Court;
5/9
(e)Ex-consequenti, the Court for the purposes of Section 21(4-A) is the Court of the Magistrate since it is that Court which is empowered to take cognizance of the offences under Section 21(1). Hence, an application for release of vehicle will lie only before the jurisdictional Magistrate;
(f)The decisions of this Court in Muthu v District Collector (2018 SCC Online Mad 13985), the order passed in review dated 09.09.2019, the decision of the Full Bench in S. Kumar v District Collector (2023) 3 MLJ (Cri) 536 and that of the learned single judge Ramar v The State (Cr R.C MD 470 of 2023) dated 11.10.2023, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the decisions of the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772, Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 14 SCC 331and Jayant v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 670 and paragraph 38 of the decision in Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62, as discussed above, do not lay down the correct law."
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the order passed by this Court, without going into the 6/9
merits of the case, this Court disposes the present Criminal Revision Petition and the matter is remitted back to the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, with a direction to the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, to consider the matter after hearing the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
23.02.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM 7/9
Copy to 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, To 1.The Inspector of Police, Villoor Police Station, Madurai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
8/9
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
RM 23.02.2024 9/9