'State Owns Every Mineral', Panchayat Can't Excavate Without Authorisation: MP High Court Refuses To Quash Sand Theft FIR Against Official

In doing so, the Court also noted that the illegal excavation of sand or any other minor mineral was causing great damage to the ecological system of the concerned area, thus, it had to be dealt with 'iron hands'.

Referring to M.P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022, Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia in his order observed:

“So far as applicability of Rules 3, 4 of Rules, 2022 is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that the exception under Rule 4 of Rules, 2022 has been granted to the Gram Panchayat for transportation and storage of minor minerals quarried from the Government lands for public works. This rule cannot be interpreted to the extent that the Gram Panchayat can commit theft or can illegally excavate the sand. State Government is the owner of every mineral and therefore the illegal excavation of the same would certainly amount to commission of theft.”

An application was filed for quashing of FIR for offences punishable under Section 379 (Punishment for theft) and Section 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the Applicant was working as a Panchayat Secretary. Sand was found stored in the house of a person named Narendra Yadav who stated that the sand was stored by the applicant. Therefore, FIR was registered against the applicant.

The counsel for applicant contended that since applicant was working as Secretary and the sand was stored for the purposes of constructing CC road therefore, in view of Rules 3, 4 of M.P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022, Panchayat Secretary cannot be made an accused. It was further submitted that the entire case was based on ocular evidence and there was nothing on record to show that it was the applicant who had stored sand in the house of Narendra Yadav. It was further contended that even Narendra Yadav had specifically stated that sand was stored for the purposes of constructing CC road in front of his house.

Referring to Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of 2022, the Court noted that an exception has been granted to the Gram Panchayat for transportation and storage of minor minerals quarried from the Government lands for public works. However, the Court said that the said rule cannot be interpreted to the extent that the Gram Panchayat can commit theft or can illegally excavate the sand.

With regard to applicant's contention on absence of documentary proof to show that it was applicant who had stored the sand, the Court observed that that the prosecution can prove its case on the basis of ocular evidence or documentary evidence or on the basis of both documentary and ocular evidence.

“Merely because no documentary evidence has been collected by the police to show that the sand was stored by applicant, this Court is of considered opinion that this Court cannot ignore the statement of Narendra Yadav which was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which he had specifically stated that the sand was stored by applicant. Further, the applicant was/is the Panchayat Secretary and he is claiming that sand was stored by Gram Panchayat for construction of CC road, therefore, being Secretary it can be presumed that it was applicant who had stored the sand.”, the Court observed.

Therefore, the Court refused to quash the FIR and dismissed the application.

Case Title: Amol Singh Yadav Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Misc. Criminal Case No. 2555 Of 2023

Counsel for Applicant: Advocate Bhupendra Singh Dhakad

Counsel for Respondent/State: Advocate Dr. Anjali Gyanani