LexSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI versus SANJAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 1063
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
v.
SANJAY
(Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 04, 2014
[M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957:
Object and legislative intent behind enactment -
Discussed.
A
B
c
Illegal sand mining - Adverse impact of - Discussed.
ss.21, 22 - Whether the provisions contained in ss.21,
D
22 and other sections of MMDR Act operate as bar against
prosecution of a person who has been charged u/ss. 3791114
and other provisions of the /PC - Held: A close reading of
the provisions of MMDR Act and the offence defined u/s.378,
/PC shows that the ingredients constituting the offence are
E
different -
The contravention of terms and conditions of
mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of s.4 of the
Act is an offence punishable uls.21 of the MMDR Act,
whereas dishonestly removing __ §g_{ld, gravels and other
minerals from the river, whicnTs the property of the State, out
F
. of State's possession without the consent, constitute an
offence of theft - Therefore, in a case where there is a theft of
sand and gravels from the Government /aQd, the police can
register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report
u/s. 173, Cr.P. C. before the Magistrate having jurisdiction for G
,(h~ ,PF,rpose of taking cognizance as provided in s.190(1)(d),
Cr.P. C. - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3791114 - Constitution of
India, 1950 -Arts 48-A, 51-A - Doctrine of Public Trust.
1063
H
1064
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 9 S.C.R.
A
Interpretation of statutes:
Non-obstante clause - Held: Is a legislative device which
is usually employed to give overriding effect to certain
provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found
8
either in the same enactment or some other enactment, that
is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary
provisions -
Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957.
Statute mandatory or directory - Held: The question
C whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the
intent of the Legislature and not upon the language in which
t""'. intent is clothed.
D
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. There cannot be any two opinions that
natural resources are the assets of the nation and its
citizens. It is the obligation of all concerned, including the
Central and the State Governments, to conserve and not
waste such valuable resources. Article 48-A of the
E Constitution requires that the State shall endeavour to
protect and improve the environment and safeguard the
forests and wild life of the country. Similarly, Article 51-A
enjoins a duty upon every citizen to protect and improve
the natu'ral environment including forests, lakes, rivers
F and wild life, and to have compassion for all the living
creatures. In view of the Constitutional provisions, the
Doctrine of Public Trust has become the law of the land.
The said doctrine rests on the principle that certain
resources like air, sea, waters and forests are of such
G great importance to the people as a whole that it would
be highly unjustifiable to make them a subject of private
ownership. Reading the provisions of the MMDR Act
minutely and carefully, prima facie there is no complete
and absolute bar in prosecuting persons under the Indian
H
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. SANJAY
1065
Penal Code where the offences committed by persons
A
are penal and cognizable offence. [Paras 55, 56] [1115-
G, H; 1116-A-D]
M. Pa/anisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu 2012 (4) CTC
1; Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012)
8
3 SCC 1: 2012 (3) SCR 147; M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath
(1997) 1 SCC 388: 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 12; Intellectuals
Forum v. State of A.P. (2006) 3 SCC 549: 2006 (2) SCR 419;
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (2014} 2 SCC
532; State of M.P. v. Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC 88:
2000
(1) SCR 579; Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan,
C
(1994) 3 SCC 440: 1994 (1) SCR 445; Maqbool Hussain v.
State of Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 325: 1953 SCR 73.0; State
of Bombay v. S.L. Apte AIR 1961 SC 578:1961 SCR 107;
T. S. Baliah v. /TO AIR 1969 SC 701: 1969 SCR 65; Collector
of Customs v. Vasantraj Bhagwanji Bhatia 1988 (3) SCC 467:
D
1988 (3) SCR 450; Leo Roy Frey v. Thomas Dana AIR 1958
SC 119: 1958 SCR 822; State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan
and Ors. (1988) 4 sec 655:1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 455;
Institute of Chartered Accountants of IndiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.