K.O.R.Senthamarai Kannan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 29/11/2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Crl.RC(MD)No.1092 of 2022 and Crl.MP(MD)No.13944 of 2022 K.O.R.Senthamarai Kannan : Petitioner/A5 Vs.
State through The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District. : Respondent/Complainant Prayer:- This Criminal Revision has been filed under section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Cr.MP No.1073 of 2022, dated 25/07/2022 in Special SC No.23 of 2021 on the file of of the Special Court to deal with the case of the offences in contravention of the prevision of the Mines and Minerals (D & R) Act, Madurai and set aside the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Gopalan For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This criminal revision has been filed against the order passed in Cr.MP No.1073 of 2022, dated 25/07/2022 in Special SC No.23 of 2021 on the file of of the Special Court to deal with the case of the offences in contravention of the prevision of the Mines and Minerals (D & R) Act, Madurai.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:- A complaint was registered on the basis of the information furnished by the de-facto complainant stating that for the past one month, illegal mining quarry operations are taking place in Melur, Vellalur, Mattangipatty, etc. It is further stated that the above said activities are being carried out by encroaching the Government canal poramboke, Kalam poramboke and water catchment area, etc. The above said occurrence places were inspected by him. The company called 'Om Sri Granites' trespassed into the Kattazhagan water catchment area in S.F No.44 measuring about 0.46 acres in Vellalur Village. They also placed the granite blocks obstructing the flowing of water. On enquiry, he came to know that in
2005 onwards the above said encroachment occurred. In spite of the instructions, the above said granite blocks were not removed. On the basis of the complaint, the case was registered in Crime No.222 of 2012 for the offences punishable under sections 447, 420, 430, 434, 465, 467, 471, 304(ii) IPC r/w 511, 109, 114 IPC and sections 6 and 3(a) and 4(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 r/w 120-B IPC.
3.This petitioner is arrayed as A5 in the final report. Before framing of the charges, this petitioner filed the impugned petition before the trial court stating that in the final report, one Mohan Das has stated as LW28, has also filed a evaluation report. But purposely, he omitted to inspect the waste granites stones kept in S.Nos.213/1A, 1C and 2A of Thaniyamangalam Group, Melur Taluk. When the failure on the part of the expert, a wrong indication to the prosecution for lodging the complaint. So if the evaluation of the above said stocks are undertaken, then it will come around 200 crores. So petition has been filed seeking an appointment of Dr.Mr.Kanishkan, who worked as former Director of Geological Survey of India to inspect and survey the area
and file a evaluation report. The above said petition was heard and finally came to be dismissed by the trial court stating that absolutely, the evaluation report by a new expert is not required, since, dehors in the above said report, the offences that have been alleged by the the petitioner can be proved by the prosecution.
4.Now the legality of the order has been called in question in this revision.
5.Even at the time of moving this petition, the court put a specific question to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to whether he can maintain such a petition of this nature, even before entering into the defence or prior to framing of charges. For that, the petitioner would submit that the above said final report has been filed improperly and if the evaluation of the above said stones are undertaken, then it will come to light that the prosecution story is not correct. According to him, he got every right to bring this fact to the notice of this court. Only for that purpose, he filed the above said petition.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that so far, charges have not been framed and the offence is of the year 2012 and only in 2021, the investigation was completed and final report was also filed and one after another, the accused filed repeated petitions making unreasonable request and discharge application.
7.Now a short point, which arises for consideration is whether even before framing of charges, such a petition is maintainable?
8.The answer to this issue can be found out in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which rules the field till now, in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (AIR 2005 SCC 359), which is to the point that the materials that have been placed by the prosecution alone can be taken into account. But however, the documents, which are of the sterling quality can be taken into account at this stage, which is also settled position of law now. So when we approach this petition from this angle, the answer that can be made is that such an attempt on the part of the petitioner is not at all maintainable. If the court considers that the evaluation
of the stocked granite stones in the adjacent place, which can be taken into account during trial. The remedy always available to the petitioner to move such an application at the appropriate time. Certainly not at the time of framing charges. Even such an application, whether required or not is exclusively within the power of the trial court to decide on the basis of the trial process. So this observation of this court should not be taken as positive indication to the effect that liberty is granted to the petitioner to move such an application in future. It is for the trial court to decide the desirability or necessity or relevancy of such attempt. So on the sole ground, I am of the considered view that the petition that was filed before the trial court is not at all maintainable and the order that has been passed by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality. Now by filing this petition, it appears that the petitioner wants to collect evidence to support his defence at the time of framing of charges, which is not permissible under law.
9.In the result, this criminal revision fails and the same is dismissed.
Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29/11/2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To, 1.The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
2.The Special Court to deal with the case of offence in contravention of Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D & R) Act, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
G.ILANGOVAN,J er
Crl.RC(MD)No.1092 of 2022 29/11/2022