- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3283 CRL.P No. 102654 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102654 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. ISHWAR @ ISHWARAPPA SHIVAPPA HULLALLI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO. 365, MAIN ROAD, ITAGI, POST. HOLE ITAGI, DIST. GADAG-582 112. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KARTIK GANACHARI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GADAG. R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. ((U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLIANT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE RULE 44(2), 44(2) AND 44(4) OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1994 AND SEC. 21(1) AND 21(2) OF THE MINES AND MINERAL (DEVELOPMENT REGULATION) ACT, 1957 VIDE ANNXURE-A AND ALL THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS THEREON PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT GADAG IN SPL.C. (MMRD) NO.08/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:22 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3283 CRL.P No. 102654 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner challenges the cognizance taken for offences punishable under Rules 44(1), 44(2), and 44(4) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, and under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 2. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), alleging that the petitioner, as a leaseholder engaged in sand mining in the Tungabhadra River, was subject to a survey conducted by officers from the Department of Mines and Geology. The first survey revealed that the petitioner had extracted sand and stored it in a stockyard, and he was called upon to pay the applicable royalty. 3. Subsequently, a second survey was conducted, which revealed that the quantity of extracted sand stored in the stockyard was less than the quantity recorded in the first survey. This discrepancy was alleged to be due to the illegal transportation of sand without obtaining the requisite permit, amounting to a violation of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a third survey was conducted following the issuance of notice to the petitioner. After inspection, a report was submitted indicating the exact quantity of extracted sand stored in the petitioner’s stockyard. It was contended that the complaint based on the first and second - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3283 CRL.P No. 102654 of 2024 surveys is redundant, and that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted based on outdated information. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State argued that the first and second surveys revealed a shortage of extracted sand. He further contended that the allegations against the petitioner constitute offences under the relevant provisions, and sought the dismissal of the petition. 6. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 7. The survey report indicates the exact quantity of extracted sand stored in the stockyard, which was less than the quantities recorded in the first and second surveys. The reduction in quantity was attributed to the removal of waste material from the sand. 8. Given that the third survey was conducted and a report submitted, the complaint based on the reports from the first and second surveys has become redundant. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted based on outdated reports. ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in SPL.C. (MMRD) No.08/2024 pending on the file of the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gadag insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused stands quashed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3283 CRL.P No. 102654 of 2024 iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioner in the event of contravention of provisions of the MMDR Act/KMMC Rules or violation of the conditions of License in accordance with law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9