http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: P.VIJAYAPAL REDDY & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/08/1978

BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT KAILASAM, P.S.

CITATION:  1978 AIR 1590            1979 SCR  (1)  92  1978 SCC  (4)  63

ACT:      Interlocutory stage,  interference by  the  High  Court under Section  .482 of  the Code  of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act II of 1974), and by the Supreme Court under Art. 136 is ordinarily impermissible.

HEADNOTE:      "Shahabad  Stones"   are  included  under  Item  15  in Schedule I  to Rule  10 of  the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966. The appellants,  who are directors of Tandur and  Navandgi Stone  Quarries (Pvt.) Ltd. and holders of mining  lease for  extraction of  lime  stones  (Shahabad Stones when  being prosecuted,  for the alleged violation of Rule 21(1)(ii)  of the  Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1958  which is  made punishable under Rules 27 of the said rules  in that  they failed  to  employ    a  qualified geologist  or   a  mining  engineer,  raised  a  preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the complaint in view of the  specific exclusion of the "Shahabad Stones" from the purview of  the 1958 Rules, being a minor mineral being used for building and construction purposes. The trial magistrate dismissed the  application and  the High  Court declined  to interfere under  Section 48  of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.      Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court, ^      HELD: As  the High  Court does not ordinarily interfere at an  interlocutory stage of a criminal proceedings pending in a  subordinate Court,  the A.P.  High Court  was right in declining to grant relief to the appellants, bearing in mind the well  recognised principles  of law governing the matter and taking  into consideration  the nature  of the  impugned order. It  is also  not a  matter in which Supreme Court may legitimately interfere  in exercise  of their extra-ordinary powers under  Art. 136  of the  Constitution especially when the case  at its  threshold and  evidence has  still  to  be adduced as  to whether the minerals extracted could or could not be  used as  a major mineral for certain purposes. It is not possible  to determine  difficult question  of the  kind involved in  the instant  case, purely  in abstract  without relevant evidence  bearing on  the matter  in issue. [93G-H, 94A-B]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 261 of 1976.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated 2-12-1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2064/75.      D. V.  Patel, Naunitlal  and Miss  Kiran Singh  for the Appellants.      P. P.  Rao, K.  Narayan Rao  and  G.  N.  Rao  for  the Respondent. 93      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      JASWANT SINGH,  J.-The appellants  who are Directors of Tandur and  Navandgi  Stone  Quarries  Private  Limited  and holders of  a mining  lease for  extraction of  lime  stones (Shahabad Stones)  are being  prosecuted  in  the  Court  of Munsif, Judicial  Magistrate, First  Class, Tandur,  for the alleged  violation   of  Rule  21  (1)(ii)  of  the  Mineral Conservation and  Development  Rules,  1958  which  is  made punishable under  Rule 27  of the  said Rules  in that  they failed to employ a qualified geologist or a mining engineer. they made  an application before the trial Magistrate urging by way  of preliminary  objection that the complaint against them was  not maintainable  in view  of the  fact  that  the ’Shahabad Stones’  Which were  being extracted  by them were used fol.  building and  construction purposes  and as  such were minor  minerals which  were specifically  excluded from the purview  of the  Rules.  The  Magistrate  dismissed  the application holding  that what  was being  operated  by  the appellants was  ’a mine for the purpose of the provisions of Rule 21  of the  Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, D, 1958’.  The appellants thereupon moved the High Court for quashing the  aforesaid criminal proceedings pending against them reiterating that as the Shahabad Stones which they were extracting  were   used  for   building  purposes  and  were described as  minor minerals in Item 15 of Schedule I to the Andhra  Pradesh   Minor  Mineral   Concession  Rules,   1966 (hereinafter  referred   to  as  M.M.C.  Rules,  1966),  the complaint against  them was  not tenable.  ’The  High  Court dismissed the  application holding  that the inherent powers possessed by  it under  Section 482  of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973  could be invoked and exercised only when the facts alleged  in the  complaint if  they are accepted to be correct at their face value, do not make out an offence with which the  accused is  charged. The  High Court further held that   merely because the ’Shahabad Stones’ were included in Schedule I  to Rule  10 of the M.M.C. Rules, it could not be said straightway  that the Stones which were being extracted by the appellants were minor minerals and that some evidence regarding their  user was necessary for determination of the question as  to whether  the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the provision of Rule 2 of the M.M.C. & D.  Rules which Provided  that the  M.M.C. Rules  do not  apply to the minor minerals.  It is  this refusal  of the  High Court  to quash the  proceedings which  has given  rise to the present appeal.      It is  now well  settled that  the High  Court does not ordinarily interfere at an interlocutory stage of a criminal proceedings pending  in a subordinate Court. Bearing in mind the well  recognised principles  of law governing the matter and taking into consideration the nature of 94

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the impugned  order, we  think the  High Court  was right in declining to  grant relief to the appellants. It is also not a matter  in which we may legitimately interfere in exercise of  our  extraordinary  powers  under  Article  136  of  the Constitution specially when the case is at its threshold and evidence has  still to be adduced as to whether the minerals extracted could  or could not be used as a major mineral for certain purposes.  It  must  be  realised  that  it  is  not possible  to   determine  difficult  question  of  the  kind involved in  the instant  case purely  in  abstract  without relevant  evidence   bearing  on   the  matter   in   issue. Accordingly, we  dismiss the  appeal. Our  order  will  not, however, be  interpreted  as  barring  the  appellants  from raising any  defence or  contention that may be open to them before the  trial court  which will  dispose of  the same in accordance with  law uninhibited by any observations made by it earlier  or by  the High Court in the course of its Order dismissing the  application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. S.R.                                       Appeal dismissed. 95