# P. VIJAYAPAL REDDY & ORS v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [1979] 1 S.C.R. 92
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1979
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 1976
- **Bench:** Jaswant Singh, P. S. Kailasam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/p-vijayapal-reddy-ors-v-government-of-india-7548
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

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 n1aintainability 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 interlocutory 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 extraF
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

## Text

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 n1aintainability 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 interlocutory 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 extraF
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 prosecuted in the Court of Munsif, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tandur,
A
for the alleged violation of Rule 21 (!)(ii) of the Mineral ConservaB
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 complaint 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 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
E:
against them was not tenable. The High Court dismissed the application 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 complaint i~ 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
F
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 •md 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.
G
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
H
in a subordinate Court. Bearing in mind the, well recognised principles
of law governing the matter and taking into consideration the nature of
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 1 S.C.R.
A
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 a1 major mineral for certain
B
purposes. lt must be realised that it is not possible to determine
difficult question of the kind involved in the instant case purely in
ab~ract without relevant evidence bearing on the matter in issue.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Onr order will not, however, be
interpreted as barring the appellants from raising any defence or conc
tention 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.
•
I
\