P. VIJAYAPAL REDDY & ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 10-08-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASWANT SINGH, P.S. KAILASAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D 
E 
92 
P. VIJAYAPAL REDDY & ORS. 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 
August IO, 1978 
[JASWANT SINGH AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Jntcrlvcutory stage, interference by the High Court under Section 482 of the 
Code of l'rin1inal Procedure 1973 (Act II of 1974 ), and by the S11pren1e C<~11rt 
"it/Ider A1t. 136 is ordinarily impennissible. 
"Shah::ibad Stones" are inc1uded under Item 15 in Schedule I to Rule IO 
of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 1966. The appellants, 
v1ho are directors of Tandur and Navmndgi ·stone Quarries (Pvt.) Ltd. :1CTJ. 
holders of a mining lease for extraction of lime stones ( Shahabad Ston~s) 
when being prosecured, for the alleged violation of Rule 21(1)(ii) of 
the 
~1lineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1958 which is n1ade pu1ushcble 
under Rule 27 of the said rules in that they failed to employ ~ qualilieU 
geologist or a mining engineer, raised a preliminary objec1ion ns to the n1ain-
tainability of the complaint in view of the specific exclusion of the "Shahahad 
Stones" from the purview of the 1958 RulcS, being a minor mineral being 
used for building and construction purposes. The trial ma.gistrate disrni&'icd 
t•he application and the High Court declined to interlere under Section 482 
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19i3. 
Disrnissing the appeal by specia-1 leave the Court, 
HELD : As the High Court does not odinarily interfere at an inter-
locutory stage of a criminal proceedings pending iri a subordinate c·ourt, 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 ind 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-
F 
ordinary pOVlers under Art 136 of the Constitution especially when tho case 
is at it& 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 Inalter 
in issue. 
[93G-H, 94A-BJ 
G 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 261 
of 1976. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order iiared 
• 
2-12-1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Misc. Peti-
\. 
tion 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. 
< 
• 
l 
P. VIJAYAPAL REUDY v. GOVT. OF INDIA (Jaswant Singh, J.) 
!i3 
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 prose-
cuted in the Court of Munsif, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tandur, 
A 
for the alleged violation of Rule 21 (!)(ii) of the Mineral Conserva-
B 
tion 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 com-
plaint against them was not maintainable in view of the fact that the 
'Shahabad Stones' which were being extracted by them were used for 
C 
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 provi-
sions 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 
E: 
against them was not tenable. The High Court dismissed the applica-
tion holding that the inherent powers posse_ssed by it under Section 
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be invoked and 
exercised only when the facts alleged in the c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.