CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 28.10.2025

PRONOUNCED ON :19.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

CRL.A(MD).No.287 of 2023

Vasudevan .. Appellant/Sole Accused

Vs.

State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Srivilliputtur Taluk Police Station,

Virudhunagar District.

In Crime NO.08/2013. .. Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C, 1973 to call for

the records and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of

the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputur

in S.C.No.08/2019, on 27.03.2023.

For Appellants : Mr.M.Jothi Basu

For Respondent : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

1/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction made

in S.C.No.8 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court,

Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputtur Taluk Police Station laid a final

report against the appellant/accused that the defacto complainant is a retired

teacher residing at Nachiyarpatti and the accused belongs to the same village,

that the accused has got quarry permit for the land in Survey No.319/3 for the

period from 10.02.2004 to 09.02.2009 and during the said permit period, the

accused also quarried mineral found in the adjacent lands in Survey No.588/12

classified as cart track poromboke and Survey No.588/14 classified as lake

poromboke with an intention to commit the theft of the same, that the accused

had quarried about 5181 units of stones without any permit and thereby caused

loss of Rs.18,13,350/- to the Government, that the accused also caused damage

to the Government property and to correct the same, the Government has to incur

Rs.18,58,144/-, that the defacto complainant made petitions against the accused

and hence, the accused threatened him with dire consequences and that the

accused thereby had committed the offences under Sections 379 and 506(i)

I.P.C., and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.

2/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur took the charge

sheet on file in P.R.C.No.17 of 2018 and furnished the copies of the records

under Section 207 Cr.P.C., on free of costs. The learned Judicial Magistrate

finding that the offence under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Property

(Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. are exclusively triable by the Court

of Sessions, after the compliance under Sections 208 and 209 Cr.P.C., committed

the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Srivilliputtur and the same was taken on

file in S.C.No.8 of 2019.

4. After the appearance of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge, on

hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, being satisfied there existed a

prima facie case against the accused, framed the charges under Sections 379 and

506(i) I.P.C., and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of

Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 against the accused and the same were read over

and explained to him and on being questioned, the accused denied the charges

and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to

P.W.14 and exhibited 9 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9 and marked one material

object as M.O.1.

3/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

6. The case of the prosecution emerging from the evidence adduced by the

prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(a) P.W.1 – Balakrishnan, the defacto complainant, a retired teacher, is

residing at Nachiyarpatti Village. PW.3 Gurusamy is working in a cracker

manufacturing company. The accused also belongs to the same village of

Nachiyarpatti. The land in Survey No.588/11 of Ayan Nachiyarpatti Village is

owned by the accused. The accused was granted lease to operate a stone quarry

in Survey No.588/11 of Ayan Nachiyarpatti Village and Survey No.319/3 of

Achamthavilthan Village for the period of five years by the order of the District

Collector dated 27.01.2004 under Ex.P.5, but the accused had quarried stones in

the adjacent lands in Survey No.588/12 classified as cart track poromboke and

the land in Survey No.58/14 classified as lake poromboke.

(b) P.W.1 sent so many complaint to various authorities, but there was no

action. Hence, he filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14849 of 2010 seeking

registration of the case and obtained orders on 18.10.2012. In pursuance of the

said orders, P.W.10 – then Sub Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Taluk Police

Station, received a complaint from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 and registered the case in

Cr.No.8 of 2013 against the accused for the offences under Sections 451, 379,

506(ii) I.P.C., and Sectin 3 of TNPPDL Act and prepared the F.I.R., under

Ex.P.6.

4/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

(c) On 07.02.2019, one Rangasamy submitted a complaint before the

District Collector, Virudhunagar District in the grievance day meeting against

the accused for illegal mining and theft of minerals in the Government

properties. The District Collector directed the Assistant Director of Geological

and Mines Department to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. In pursuance

of the same, P.W.4 – then Assistant Geologist and P.W.13 – Ayyakutti, then

Special Deputy Tahsildar (Mines) along with other officials inspected the place

of quarry and found that the accused had excavated stones from the adjacent

lands in Survey No.588/12 classified as cart track poromboke and in Survey No.

588/14, classified as lake poromboke and ascertained the total excavation at

14663 Cubic Metres and submitted a reprot dated 08.12.2009 under Ex.P.2.

After receiving the said report, P.W.12 – Thiru.Kasi Viswanathan, then Revenue

Divisional Officer, Sivakasi issued a show cause notice to the accused. The

accused submitted a reply. P.W.12 passed an order dated 05.03.2010 under

Ex.P.8 imposing a fine of Rs.28,23,645/- against the accused. On the request

made by the police, P.W.11- the then Revenue Tahsildar of Srivilliputtur gave

the copies of adangal and “A” register for the lands in Survey Nos.588/12 and

and 588/14 under Ex.P.7. The accused filed an appeal before the District

Collector, Virudhunagar challenging Ex.P.8 order and the same was dismissed

on 20.12.2012. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the accused filed

5/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

Second Appeal before the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai and

is pending.

(d) P.W.14-Thiru Mahendrapandian – then Inspector of Police took up the

case in Cr.No.8 of 2013 for further investigation and visited the place of

occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar under Ex.P.3 in the presene of

P.W.5 – Alagarraj and one Gurusamy and drew a rough sketch under Ex.P.9.

P.W.14 examined P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.12, P.W.13 and observation

mahazar witnesses and recorded their statements. He also examined P.W.10 –

Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R. After his transfer, he handed

over the case file to his successor Thiru.Devarajan, who in turn handed over the

file to his successor Maheshkumar.

(e) The said Inspector of Police Maheshkumar took up the case for further

investigation and examined the witnesses P.W.6 to P.W.9 and recorded their

statements. After completing the investigation, he filed the final report against

the accused for the offences under Sections 379, 506(i) I.P.C., and under Section

3(i) of TNPPDL Act. P.W.9 – then Head Constable attached to the respondent

police, as per the instruction of P.W.14 had taken up photos in the place of

occurrence and submitted the same with C.D., under Ex.M.O.1 series. P.W.7 –

the then Union Engineer of Srivilliputtur Panchayat Union, as per the request

6/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

made by the police, inspected the quarry and and submitted a report under Ex.P.4

stating that Rs.18,58,144/- is required for filling up the pits caused in the

Government lands. With the examination of P.W.14, the prosecution has closed

their side evidence.

(f) When the accused was examined under Section 313(1) (b) Cr.P.C with

regard to the incriminating aspects found as against him in the evidence adduced

by the prosecution, he denied the same as false and stated that a false case has

been foisted against him. Though the accused stated that he is having defence

evidence, he has not let in any evidence subsequently.

7. The learned Sessions Judge, upon considering the evidence adduced

and on hearing the arguments of both sides, passed the impugned judgment

dated 27.03.2023 convicting the accused for the offence under Section 379

I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to

pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as fine, in default to undergo one month Simple

Imprisonment and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 3(i)

TNPPDL Act and sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment

and instead of fine, imposed compensation of Rs.18,58,144/- directing the

District Collector to use the said amount for restoring the land in Survey Nos.

588/12 and 588/14 of Nachiyarpatti Village and holding that the prosecution

7/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

failed to prove the charge under Section 506(i) I.P.C., acquitted the accused

under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

sentence, the accused preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the

materials available on record.

9. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in

S.C.No.8 of 2019, dated 27.03.2023 on the file of the Principal District and

Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur is liable to be set aside? is

the point of consideration?

10. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was granted a lease to

operate a stone quarry in S.No.319/3 of Achamthavilthan Village and 588/11 of

Ayan Nachiyarpatti Village for the period between 10.02.2004 to 09.02.2009 by

the District Collector, Virudhunagar, that the accused during the said five years

period had also quarried stones in the adjacent lands in S.No.588/12 classified as

cart track poromboke and S.No.588/14 classified as lake poromboke and the

total extent of 14662 cubic meter stone was illegally quarried by the accused and

that thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.18,13,350/- to the Government. It is

8/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

the further case of the prosecution that the Government has to incur

Rs..18,58,144/- for filling up the pits and levelling the lands and that fine levied

at Rs.28,23,645/- under the Mines and Minerals Act and Rules framed

thereunder, was not paid and that since the defacto complainant sent several

complaints, the accused had threatened him with dire consequences.

11. The learned Counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that

though the prosecution has alleged that the accused had quarried stone in the

adjoining lands in Survey Nos.588/12 and 588/14, there was no direct evidence

to show that the accused alone had quarried stones in the said survey lands, that

the prosecution has neither furnished particulars nor produced any evidence to

show how the accused had taken the stones, how it was transported and to whom

it was transported and that the prosecution mainly relied on the report given by

P.W.4 and P.W.13 in the year 2009, as if the appellant had illegally quarried the

said lands, that the Second Appeal filed by the accused before the Commissioner

of Geology and Mining, Chennai is pending, that since the competent authorities

under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and the Tamil

Nadu Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, have already taken action and

imposed fine, the present prosecution cannot legally be sustained, that the

authorities under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)Act are

duty bound to follow the procedures stated under Section 100 of the Criminal

9/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

Procedure Code at the time of inspection or before conducting search and it is

the duty of the concerned officer under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., to call upon two

or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the

search place is situated, but in the present case such a procedure has not been

followed and that therefore, the inspection made by the revenue officials and

action taken on that basis are illegal.

12. The learned Counsel for the accused would further submit that even

according to the prosecution, the District Collector directed the Assistant

Director of Geology and Mining to conduct an enquiry and submit a report, but

admittedly the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining – P.W.8 has not

conducted any inspection and P.W.4 Assistant Geologist along with the Special

Tahsildar (mines) have conducted inspection and filed the report and that since

the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining was deputed to conduct the

inspection, he has no right to delegate the said duty to his subordinates and as

such, the inspection conducted by them and the report submitted therefor are

illegal. The learned Counsel would further submit that the charge framed against

the accused does not contain the particulars of place, time and person and the

charge must also contain the particulars of the manner in which the alleged

offence was committed, but the charges in the present case are vague and bald

10/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

which does not reveal the case of the prosecution and that therefore, the same

vitiated the conviction and is liable to be set aside.

13. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the

prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 have deposed about the illegal quarrying

of stones in the cart track poromboke and lake poromboke by the accused, that

P.W.4 and P.W.13 have deposed about the inspection conducted by them, in

pursuance of the directions of the District Collector, Virudhunagar and

submitting of their report that the accused had illegally quarried the said lands to

an extent of 14662 Cubic Metre and on the basis of the said report, P.W.12

passed an order imposing the fine of Rs.28,23,645/-, that the appeal filed by the

accused before the District Collector, Virudhunagar was already dismissed and

the Second Appeal before the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai is

pending,, that the lands in dispute were classified as lake poromboke and cart

track poromboke and the accused without any permission quarried the said lands

along with his own land for which licence was granted and that the prosecution

through ample evidence has proved the charges levelled against the accused.

14. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would further submit

that the charge framed against the accused contains the necessary and required

particulars, that the accused was fully aware of the case of the prosecution and

11/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

participated in the trial and that even assuming that there are some errors in the

charges, in the absence of any prejudice caused or that failure of justice

occasioned, that will not vitiate the conviction. He would further submit that the

ingredients for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C., and for the offence

punishable under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act are different and that there is no bar for the police from taking

action against the persons for committing the theft of sand and minerals by

exercising power under the Code of Criminal Procedure and that therefore, since

because fine was imposed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulations) Act, that by itself will not debar the police from registering the case

and from prosecuting the accused for the offence under I.P.C., and TNPPDL Act.

15. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side),

P.W.1 – complainant gave evidence reiterating the complaint contentions.

P.W.3, a resident of Ianm Nachiyarpatti Village corroborated the case of the

prosecution that the accused had illegally quarried stones in Survey Nos.588/12

and 588/14 belonging to Government. No doubt, the accused has taken a

defence that the lands in Survey Nos.588/12 and 588/14 were comprised in

S.No.401/8 of Inam Nachiyarpatti Village, which admeasuring 1.97 Acres, out

of which the accused's grandfather Naranappa Naicker purchased an extent of

1.24Acres and one Nallava Naicker had purchased 73 cents on the south of

12/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

S.No.401/8 and during re-survey, the said lands were wrongly classified as lake

poromboke and cart track poromboke and that the stones were quarried even

prior to 1950 and that the accused had never quarried stones in the said lands.

16. The prosecution produced the copy of “A” Register, FMB sketch and

Adangal through P.W.11 – then Revenue Tahsildar of Srivilliputtur, wherein it is

shown that S.No.588/12 as cart track and S.No.588/14 as Oorani. P.W.11 in his

evidence would say that in the village records, there was no survey number as

S.No.401/8. The accused has not produced any iota of evidence to show that

S.No.401/8 of Inam Nachiyarpatti Village during re-survey was wrongly

classified as cart track and Oorani. Though the accused has also alleged that the

said lands are also their patta lands, there is absolutely no evidence to

substantiate the same. As already pointed out, in pursuance of the directions of

the District Collector, Virudhunagar, P.W.4 and P.W.13 along with other

officials inspected the lands in dispute and came to conclusion that the accused

along with the licenced land had quarried stones in S.Nos.588/12 and 588/14 and

quantified the same as 14,662 cubic meters ie., 5181 units and submitted their

report under Ex.P.2.

17. It is evident that P.W.12 – then Revenue Divisional Officer, after

issuing show cause notice and upon the receipt of the reply from the accused,

13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

passed an order under Ex.P.8 imposing a fine of Rs.28.23.645/-. It is admitted

by the accused that his appeal challenging Ex.P.8 order passed P.W.12 was

dismissed by the District Collector, Virudhunagar. But according to him, the

Second Appeal before the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai was

pending. But the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that

the Second Appeal was also dismissed and despite the same, the accused has not

chosen to pay the find amount till now.

18. P.W.4 in his cross-examination would say

“g[fhhpd; Bghpy; Ma;t[ bra;Bjd;. 14,662 fdkPl;lh; mstpw;F fy;

cilf;fg;gl;lJ. ve;j fhyfl;lj;jpy; cilf;fg;gl;L vLf;fg;gl;lJ

vd;why; thRBjtd; elj;jp tUk; fy;Fthhpapd; bjhlh;r;rpahf Bkw;go

nlj;jpy; fy; cilf;fg;gl;L vLf;fg;gl;ljhYk; me;j nlj;jpy; vjphp

kl;LBk fy;Fthhp itj;J elj;jp tUtjhYk; vjphp kPJ g[fhh;

te;jjpdhYk; BkYk; ehd; Ma;tpw;F brd;w fhyfl;lj;jpy; jhd; fy;

cilj;J vLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.”

19. P.W.13 in his evidence would depose that they came to know that the

accused had quarried the stones in his lands in S.No.588/11 and also in S.No.

588/12 cart track poromboke land and S.No.588/14 Oorani Government

poromboke lands illegally. As rightly contended by the learned Government

Advocate (Crl.Side), the defence's claim that witnesses did not specify the

14/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

quarrying period doesn't hold water, as they didn't deny quarrying happened -

they just didn't know when. The lands were allegedly in the same condition since

1950, per the defence.

20. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 with regard to the illegal quarrying

of stones by the accused corroborated with the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.13

and their report under Ex.P.2. As per Section 378 I.P.C., theft involves

dishonestly taking movable property without consent. Explanation 1 to 378

clarifies earth attached things become theft subjects when severed. Considering

the way in which quarrying of stones was done, it can easily be inferred that the

accused had dishonest intention to steal and remove the stones from the said

lands, without licence / permission.

21. As per the request of the police, P.W.7 – then Union Engineer,

inspected the lands and ascertained the damages caused to the lands and gave a

report under Ex.P.4 stating that the Government requires Rs.18,58,144/- to level

the lands. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side),

the evidence of P.W.7 corroborates the case of the prosecution that the accused

damaged the Government lands and caused loss to the Government exchequer.

22. Now turning to the technical objections, applying a legal maxim

15/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

“delegatus non potest delegare” that a delegate cannot further delegate.

according to the defence, though the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

was directed to conduct inspection and submit a report by the District Collector,

he deputed P.W.4 - Assistant Geologist and P.W.13- Special Tahsildar (Mines)

to conduct inspection and that since the Assistant Director himself has not

conducted inspection and submitted the report, the inspection conducted by

P.W.4 and P.W.13 and their report are illegal.

23. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side),

since the District Collector received the complaint in the grievance meeting,

directed the concerned Assistant Director to enquire the complaint and submit ta

report, who in turn directed his subordinate Assistant Geologist and also the

Special Tahsildar (mines), to inspect the quarry lands and as such, the same

cannot be faulted. The legal maxim by no stretch of imagination can be made

applicable to the case on hand.

24. The learned Counsel for the accused would submit that since the

inspection was not conducted in tune with Section 100 Cr.P.C., and since two or

more independent witnesses were not taken at the time of inspection violating

Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., the inspection conducted by P.W.4 and P.W.13 and their

report which are illegal, cannot be looked into. The learned Counsel would rely

16/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC Limited Vs. State of

Karnataka and another reported in 2025 INSC 1111. In the said decision case,

the authority acting under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act conducted an

inspection at the appellant's premises, which is engaged in the business of

stationery items including Exercise Books / Notebooks, Pens, Pencils etc., and

seized 7600 CFCs/packages of “Classmate” exercise books for the alleged

violation of Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules,

2011 and pursuant to the seizure, a seizure notice and a compounding notice

were issued to the appellant. When the same was challenged, a learned Single

Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashed the notices issued by the second

respondent and directed to release the seized goods holding that the search and

seizure were conducted without jurisdiction. But in the writ appeal, the Division

Bench by observing that the requirement of a search warrant does not arise

where action is initiated under Section 15 of the 2009 Act and that the Authority

is duly empowered to inspect, search and seize and set aside the order passed in

the writ petition. The appellant's review petition was dismissed and challenging

the same, he moved a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble

Apex Court considered the requirements contemplated under Section 100

Cr.P.C., and 100(4) Cr.P.C., and also Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act

2009, has held that the entire proceedings from search to seizure are illegal and

unsustainable, as neither a warrant was obtained nor reasons recorded for search,

17/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

inspection or seizure. But in the present case, there was no such search or

seizure and only in pursuance of the directions of the District Collector, the

competent authorities have inspected the quarry lands and found the damages

caused to the Government lands. Hence, the above decision is not applicable to

the case on hand.

25. The learned Counsel for the accused would submit that the charges

framed against the accused does not comply with the requirements under

Sections 212 and 213 Cr.P.C., that the charges does not contain the particulars of

time, place and person, nor the manner in which the alleged offence was

committed and that therefore the accused was mislead by the defective charges

and the same vitiates the conviction. The learned Counsel would rely on the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalicharan and others Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023)2 SCC 583, wherein it is held as follows:

“ Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Ss.211, 212, 213 and III.

(e) thereto, 215, 313 and 464 – Omission to frame proper

charge and to put relevant circumstances to accused during

their examination under S.313 (in a murder case) – Effect of –

III.(e) of S.213 CrPC – When applicable – Principles clarified.

Held, object of the provisions regarding framing of charge is

that accused should be in a position tis effectively defend

himself - Accused can properly defend himself provided he is

clearly informed about the nature of the allegations against him

18/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

before the actual trial starts - Further, held, there is the specific

requirement of S. 213 CrPC that if the particulars mentioned in

Ss. 211 and 212 CrPC do not give the accused sufficient notice

of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also

contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged

offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose -

However, in a murder case, this must be read subject to III. (?)

to S. 213 CrPC, which states that the charge contains an

allegation that A is accused of the murder of B at a given time

and place, the charge need not state the manner in which A

murdered B

- Regarding effect of error or omission in charge, as per

S. 464 CrPC, finding and sentence will be invalid only, if in the

opinion of the court of appeal, the error or omission occasioned

a failure of justice - While determining whether any failure of

justice was occasioned due to omission to frame a charge or

error in the charge, held, the court has to examine the entire

record of the trial including the statements of the accused

recorded under S. 313 CrPC”

26. There is no dispute about the legal position referred above. In the case

on hand, the charges were specific that during the lease period from 10.02.2004

to 09.02.2009, the accused with an intention to steal the minerals, had quarried

the stones in Survey No.588/12 classified as cart track poromboke and Survey

No.588/14 classified as Oorani.

19/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

27. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the first two charges framed

against the accused.

“KjyhtJ Fw;wr;rhl;L

vjpupahfpa ePu; ckf;F fy;Fthup Fj;jif mDkjpf;fg;gl;l

fhykhd 10.02.2004 Kjy; 09.02.2009-k; Njjp tiu Rkhu; 5 Mz;L fhykhf

fdpkj;ij jpUl Ntz;Lk; vd;w clfUj;Jld; mad;ehr;rpahu; fpuhkg; Gy

vz;588/12 Cuzp Gwk;Nghf;fpy; 1865 fdkPl;lu; mstpy; 659 A+dpl

fdpkts fw;fisAk;> 588/14 mad; ehr;rpahu; Nfhtpy; tz;bg;ghijapy;

12797 fd;kPl;lu; mstpy; 4522 A+dpl; fdpk ts fw;fisAk;> nkhj;jk; 5181

A+dpl fdpkts fw;fisj; jpUba Fw;wj;jpw;fhf Sec.379 of IPC gpuptpd;gb

,e;ePjpkd;wj;jhy; tprhuiz nra;aj;jf;fJk;> jz;bf;fj;jf;fJkhd Fw;wk;

Gupe;Js;sPu;

,uz;lhtJ Fw;wr;rhl;L

vjpupahfpa ePu; tpUJefu; khtl;l Ml;rpaupd; nray;Kiw Mizg;gb

mDkjpf;fg;gl;l fy;Fthup fdpkts cj;juit kPwp mDkjpf;fg;glhj Gy

vz;fspy; fdpk ts fw;fisj; Njhz;b vLj;J fpuhk tz;bg;ghij kw;Wk;

Cuzpia ntl;br; Nrjg;gLj;jp &18>54>144/- Nrjhuk; Vw;gLj;jpa

Fw;wj;jpw;fhf> Sec. 3(i) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage

and Loss) Act 1992-d; gb ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jhy; tprhuiz nra;aj;jf;fJk;>

20/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

jz;bf;fj;jf;fJkhd Fw;wk; Gupe;Js;sPu;fs;.”

28. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side),

P.W.12 had already passed an order dated 05.03.2010 under Ex.P.8 narrating

commissions and omissions on the part of the accused and his illegal quarrying

of stones during the period of 5 years along with measurements and imposed a

fine of Rs.28,23,645/-. The prosecution has relied on the report under Ex.P.2

given by P.W.4 and P.W.13.

29. Considering the above, it is clear that the accused was aware of the

accusations and participated in the trial. Even if there were charge defects, he

was not misled. Section 464 Cr.P.C. says irregularities are not fatal unless they

cause injustice or prejudice. The accused has not shown he was harmed or

disadvantaged in his defence. As rightly contended by the learned Government

Advocate, no prejudice or justice failure is evident, so the contention is liable to

be rejected.

30. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would rely on a decision

of the Division Bench of this Court in Sengol and Others Vs. State reported in

2012(1) MWN(Crl)238 (DB), wherein the Division Bench while answering the

reference has observed as follows:

“(i) Since, the offences under the Indian Penal Code involved in

21/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

the cases before us and an offence under Section 21 of the Mines

and Minerals [Development and Regulation] Act, 1957 are not

the same offences in terms of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of

India, the provisions of the Mines and Minerals [Development

and Regulation] Act will not exclude the provisions of IPC.

Therefore, in respect of sand theft, it will be lawful for the police

to register a case as provided in Section 154Cr.P.C., under

Section 379 and other relevant provisions of IPC, investigate the

same as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure

and to lay a final report under Section 173 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, upon which it will be well within the

competence of the jurisdictional Magistrate to take cognizance.

Therefore, such an FIR, where case has been registered only

under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, shall not be liable

to be quashed.”

31. He would also rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay, reported in 2014(9) SCC 772, wherein it was

observed as follows:

“71. However, there may be situation where a person without

any lease or licence or any authority enters into river and

extracts sands, gravels and other minerals and remove or

transport those minerals in a clandestine manner with an intent

to remove dishonestly those minerals from the possession of the

State, is liable to be punished for committing such offence under

Sections 378 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

72. From a close reading of the provisions of MMDR Act

22/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

and the offence defined under Section 378, IPC, it is manifest

that the ingredients constituting the offence are different. The

contravention of terms and conditions of mining lease or doing

mining activity in violation of Section 4 of the Act is an offence

punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, whereas

dishonestly removing sand, gravels and other minerals from the

river, which is the property of the State, out of State’s

possession without the consent, constitute an offence of theft.”

32. Considering the above, it is clear that the action taken under the Mines

and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and Rules framed thereunder

and the present criminal action are entirely different and as such, the present

prosecution is legally sustainable. In the above decision, the Hon'ble Apex

Court has come down heavily on the theft of minerals and observed that the

Court shall take judicial notice of the fact that over the years rivers in India have

been affected by the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which is

damaging the eco-system of the rivers and safety of bridges and it also weakens

river beds, fish breeding and destroys the natural habitat of many organisms and

if these illegal activities are not stopped by the State and the police authorities of

the State, it will cause serious repercussions as mentioned hereinabove and it

will not only change the river hydrology but also will deplete the ground water

levels.

23/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

33. In the light of the above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that

the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the offence

under Section 379 I.P.C., and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and as such, the

conviction is liable to be confirmed.

34. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused one year Rigorous

Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one month

Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. For the offence

under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, the learned Sessions Judge, after sentencing

the accused for one year Rigorous Imprisonment, in respect of fine, awarded

compensation of Rs.18,58,144/- probably under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. But

Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act mandates punishment with imprisonment for a term

which may extend to 5 years and with fine. Since the imposition of fine while

convicting the accused under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act is mandatory, the

punishment imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the said offence cannot

be considered legal. If this Court converts the compensation as fine, that will

amount to enhancement of sentence and that cannot be done without hearing the

accused.

35. It is pertinent to note that only in cases, where imposition of fine is not

24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

mandatory, the Court can award compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. If

imposition of fine is mandatory, the Court is duty bound to impose fine and

cannot award compensation in lieu of fine. Considering the above, modification

of sentence is necessary. Hence, notice is to be issued to the accused to call

upon him to show cause as to why fine should not be imposed for the offence

under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.

36. Post the matter on 05.01.2026.

19.12.2025

NCC : Yes/No

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes/No

SSL

1. The Principal District and Sessions Court,

Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputur.

2. The Inspector of Police,

Srivilliputtur Taluk Police Station,

Virudhunagar District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

4.The Section Officer,

Criminal Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

25/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

CRL.A(MD).No.287 of 2023

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

In pursuance of the notice issued, the accused appeared in person

along with his Counsel on 05.01.2026. The learned Counsel for the accused

submitted that the appeal filed by the Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai

is pending and at that juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

sought time to verify whether the appeal is pending. When the matter was taken

up on 07.01.2026, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that

the appeal before the Director of Geology and Mining is still pending and that

the accused has not paid the fine levied under Ex.P.8.

2. The accused is questioned about the fine to be imposed, as

imposition of fine is mandatory for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL

Act. The accused submitted that lesser fine may be imposed and since he is ready

to deposit the compensation levied by the trial Court, punishment of

imprisonment may be dropped. The learned Counsel for the accused would

submit that the accused is aged 58 years and he is the father of three daughters

and that he is ready to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the trial

Court and hence, the imprisonment may be dropped.

26/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that

the appellant is neither paid the fine levied under Ex.P.8 nor the compensation

awarded by the trial Court and that therefore, he is not entitled to get any

leniency in punishment.

4. Illegal mining and mineral theft from Government properties

cause severe damage – destroying habitats, polluting the environment and

endangering communities. It's devastating for species and deprives the

Government of revenue for public services and environment protection. Given

the impact, penalties should be tough – significant fines and imprisonment are

warranted for such crimes.

5. It is pertinent to note that under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act,

the imprisonment for a term of not less than six months is mandatory. No doubt,

the proviso states that the Court may award a sentence of imprisonment for a

term of less than six months by recording special and adequate reasons. In the

present case, the accused has not shown any special or adequate reason for

imposing a lesser term.

27/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

6. Considering the above, the accused is convicted for the offence

under Section 379 I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo three months Rigorous

Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months

Simple Imprisonment. The accused is also convicted for the offence under

Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous

Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.18,58,144/-, in default to undergo one year

Simple Imprisonment. Both sentences are to run concurrently. The period of

detention of the accused already undergone shall be set off under Section 428

Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to pay the fine amount before the trial Court

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment

and to surrender before the concerned Court for undergoing the remaining part

of the sentence, if any. In case of failure, the learned Sessions Judge,

Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur is directed to take necessary steps to

secure the accused for undergoing the remaining period of sentence.

7. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

09.01.2026

NCC : Yes/No

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes/No

SSL

28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Court,

Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputur.

2. The Inspector of Police,

Srivilliputtur Taluk Police Station,

Virudhunagar District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

4.The Section Officer,

Criminal Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

29/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.(MD).No.287 of 2023

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

SSL

PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN

CRL.A(MD).No.287 of 2023

19.12.2025

30/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis